Climate talks resume amid warnings of looming calamity

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

  • -2

    realist

    Its that time of year again, folks, when the ecocrazies go to an exotic location for TWO WEEKS, at our expense, to try to blackmail governments and the ordinary people of the world to beleive that we are in danger of 'calamity' and 'meltdown' because of something they now refer to as climate change, interspersed with the usual guff about global warming, which, they assert, is because of human activities, plus flatulent cows. Blah blah and more blah. Perhaps they havent heard the news from the British Met Office, who have anmounced to the world recently that "there has been NO global warming for the past 16 years!" these people never give up with their efforts to deceive us all, and impose their politico-religious beliefs upon us., for their own selfish economic benefits. They terrorise our children with ridiculous and innacurate documentary films made by people like Al Gore, who is also on their bandwagon and making a fortune out of the nonsense, too. These people must think we are all fools. They suggest to us that their "scienctific views" are now accepted and believed by all scientists around the world. Not true. Their "science" is flawed, because they tell us its based on data from the time that records began....in 1862!! How ridiculous is that? Compared to the hundreds of thousands of years of the Earth's history, the period from 1862 until the present time is the equivalent of three seconds. Not enough to build any theory on. They do not take into account the Medieval Warm Period nor the Mini Ice Age, not all that long ago, when the Thames in London froze over every year. Why? Because that would instantly expose their theories to be without legitmacy. Now they are trying to tell us that Hurricane Sandy was caused by global warming, which hasnt happened for 16 years. It wasnt the biggest storm to hit America, and it wont be the last one. Its called Nature. This latest attempt will fail, as have all the others in recent years, because more and more people know a scam when they see it.

  • 0

    Thomas Anderson

    Perhaps they havent heard the news from the British Met Office, who have anmounced to the world recently that "there has been NO global warming for the past 16 years!"

    Perhaps you haven't heard that British Met Office themselves refuted the DAILY MAIL's claim that "there has been NO global warming for the past 16 years". Please use scientifically reputable source instead of sensationalist tabloid source like the Daily Mail.

  • 0

    Thomas Anderson

    these people never give up with their efforts to deceive us all, and impose their politico-religious beliefs upon us.

    Who do you think is being more political/religious? People who merely report scientifically validated data after data, or someone who blindly oppose any scientific findings because it does not fit his political agenda that governments shouldn't regulate people/corporations?

    Where's your science? Are you a climate scientist by any chance?

  • -1

    some14some

    i am with "realist" and i know people don't like the reality.

  • -1

    noriyosan73

    It would be a lot easier if both sides just waited a few years to see who is right. Why waste the media's time and discussions just to be able to say, "I told you so" and gloat about it? Ice melts in the Arctic, but since it is floating, the sea level does not rise. Ice is deposited in the Antarctic and the weather patterns change. It would be better to prepare for a proven continental and pole shift than a mythical sea level change.

  • 1

    Laguna

    Their "science" is flawed, because they tell us its based on data from the time that records began....in 1862!!

    Atmospheric chemical levels encased in ice deposited a hundred thousand years ago are part of their evidence. Chemicals in rocks formed a million years ago are part of their evidence. It would help you to think more as a scientist and not as an ideologue.

  • -3

    Outta here

    Well said realist, however sadly the big money spinner that is global warming will not go away as long as these doom mongers can spread their rubbish to the gaulible masses. There is to much money tied up in taxes and other incomes that are generated by this hysteria to turn back now.

    I wonder if those that attend the talks are really that concerned about their carbon footprint for attending this farce?

    Global warming is a nonsensical money spinner for government and nothing more. We have had ice ages and periods of high temperatures in the past that where not due to human actions. Prove that this isn't just another of those events! Can't can you? Easier to tax the masses and make them pay for nature doing as nature does.

  • -3

    YuriOtani

    Strange, they tell us not to fly in planes. Do not drive cars or very small electric. Use no more than 2 squares of toilet paper, etc. While they live in large mansions, fly in private jets and go around in very large cars. Some how we are the problem and they have privilege.

  • 1

    lucabrasi

    Fact 1: Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere raises temperatures on the ground.

    Fact 2: Many human activities produce carbon dioxide.

    Fact 3: These activities can be modified to produce less carbon dioxide.

    It's not a question of opinion. It's not rocket science.

    @noriyosan

    Of course melting floating ice doesn't raise sea-levels. But when the Himalayan glaciers go, that's going open up a whole can of misery and suffering for a lot of people all over the world.

  • -1

    Herve Nmn L'Eisa

    The Earth's climate has never been in a stasis condition, and it's the epitome of idiocity to presume humans can have a hand at creating such stability. But, then again, consider the promoters of the tail-chasing notion. We're more likely to enter a mini Ice Age again due to volcanic activity.

  • -1

    Outta here

    lucabrasi

    Fact 1: Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere raises temperatures on the ground.

    Agreed.

    Fact 2: Many human activities produce carbon dioxide.

    As do many other things. Maybe you care to explain the spike in carbon dioxide levels 300,000 years ago. Humans weren't around then with cars etc. or the spike 125,000 years ago or the one 200,000 years ago or the big spike 400,000 years ago. Unless I'm mistaken we cannot blame cars, people etc for those spikes. But we tend to gloss over those cycles now don't we.

    Fact 3: These activities can be modified to produce less carbon dioxide.

    True we could save on producing carbon, here's one way. Stop these wasteful junkets where these money grubbing fear mongers fly from all over the world to rub their hands together at our expense and say how bad we have been and how we will all die for our polluting sins.

  • 1

    Thomas Anderson

    It would be a lot easier if both sides just waited a few years to see who is right. Why waste the media's time and discussions just to be able to say, "I told you so" and gloat about it? Ice melts in the Arctic, but since it is floating, the sea level does not rise. Ice is deposited in the Antarctic and the weather patterns change. It would be better to prepare for a proven continental and pole shift than a mythical sea level change.

    That won't be a good idea since we don't even have a few years to waste.

  • 1

    Thomas Anderson

    I wonder why the global warming skeptics never mention any science? They only talk in ideological conspiracies.

    Let's get real folks, this is about science, and it has nothing to do with ideology or politics.

  • 2

    Thomas Anderson

    it's the epitome of idiocity to presume humans can have a hand at creating such stability.

    It's the epitome of "idiocity" (did you mean "idiocy"?) to presume that humans CAN'T influence the global climate. We are only reading and reporting objective data here, we don't deal with presumptions like humans can't affect the environment. That' not science.

  • 2

    lucabrasi

    Outta here

    As do many other things. Maybe you care to explain the spike in carbon dioxide levels 300,000 years ago. Humans weren't around then with cars etc. or the spike 125,000 years ago or the one 200,000 years ago or the big spike 400,000 years ago.

    So, because we couldn't do anything to affect climate change in the past, we should reject the opportunity to do so now? Doesn't make sense.

    And I'm not listening to the "money-grubbing fear mongers", I'm listening to the vast majority of trained climate scientists all over the world, who I recognise know a heck of a lot more than I do.

    Why is it that people are willing to listen to trained health experts (doctors) when it comes to their own health and well-being, willing to leave the flying of an aeroplane to the expert (pilot), willing to let experts (engineers) build their cars they drive, but are contemptuous of climate experts?

    Just because you don't like the bad news doesn't mean it isn't true.

  • 1

    Thomas Anderson

    As do many other things. Maybe you care to explain the spike in carbon dioxide levels 300,000 years ago. Humans weren't around then with cars etc. or the spike 125,000 years ago or the one 200,000 years ago or the big spike 400,000 years ago. Unless I'm mistaken we cannot blame cars, people etc for those spikes. But we tend to gloss over those cycles now don't we.

    Nobody is saying that the carbon dioxide levels never changed, but the fact is that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is correlated with the global temperature since it acts as a heat-trapping blanket. Right now humans are putting BACK more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that were trapped in beneath the Earth's ground.

  • 0

    Herve Nmn L'Eisa

    Thomas, perhaps you posted this ( I wonder why the global warming skeptics never mention any science? They only talk in ideological conspiracies.) before reading this from Outta Here:

    " Maybe you care to explain the spike in carbon dioxide levels 300,000 years ago. Humans weren't around then with cars etc. or the spike 125,000 years ago or the one 200,000 years ago or the big spike 400,000 years ago. Unless I'm mistaken we cannot blame cars, people etc for those spikes. But we tend to gloss over those cycles now don't we."

    That's an inconvenient truth.

  • -1

    sidesmile

    So what are we supposed to do about it and is it feasible that everyone can and would do it?? I mean really...nobody is going to stop travelling on planes, or make a point to drive electric cars, or stop farming cows. And 2 sheets of toilet paper?! Per sq cm of butt crack I will agree to..but per wipe? Be my guest. We cannot change what is coming, if indeed anything is coming and if indeed any of it is at all our fault.

  • 1

    Thomas Anderson

    Well no one is saying that we should never travel on planes and things like that... we don't necessarily have to sacrifice our current living standards if we can do things right.

    I'm no expert but but it seems to me that we need to completely rethink our global energy, agriculture, environmental policies, de/forestation, population growth... etc. strategies. It's not all doom and gloom and that everybody is going to die and there will be an economic collapse. But we have to do something about it, that's for sure. In fact this could be seen as a challenge for growth. We certainly can't live unsustainably without collapsing.

  • -1

    Outta here

    Herve Nmn L'Eisa

    Thomas, perhaps you posted this ( I wonder why the global warming skeptics never mention any science? They only talk in ideological conspiracies.) before reading this from Outta Here: " Maybe you care to explain the spike in carbon dioxide levels 300,000 years ago. Humans weren't around then with cars etc. or the spike 125,000 years ago or the one 200,000 years ago or the big spike 400,000 years ago. Unless I'm mistaken we cannot blame cars, people etc for those spikes. But we tend to gloss over those cycles now don't we." That's an inconvenient truth.

    Exactly. It's amusing the likes of Thomas etc like to throw around the "skeptics never mention science" yet when the believers are confronted with scientific fact that carbon dioxide in the environment has gone up and down in the past as have temperatures they fail to make mention of it.

    Thomas l agree that population needs to be controlled, as does pollution, and de forestation. But to band that all in e convenient little "global warming" scare tactic is nonsense. Do you really think the 0.8 degree increase in temperatures in the past 150 years is the only time this has occurred in the history of this planet?

  • 0

    NeverSubmit

    Looming Calamity?

    Whatever happened to the Looming Calamity of the Coming Ice Age that was touted by "scientific experts" in the 1970s?

    Y2K..

    2012..

    Climate Calamity..

    I've heard it all before. Maybe in 20 years they'll go back to the Ice Age Theory.

  • 0

    Madverts

    "I've heard it all before. Maybe in 20 years they'll go back to the Ice Age Theory."

    Or even the flat-earth theory?

  • -2

    realist

    Good to read all the comments here and see that there are many more who a mot deceived by the climate alarmists.
    A few comments. "many human activities produce carbon dioxide". Yes, like breathing and flatulance. Also true of the animal species. Thats one of the reasons why the climate alarmists have also spoken about human population control. It sounds so much like Nazism when some of them talk about the use of forces sterilization of the masses to achieve this goal. Presumably, like Hitler, they would devise a scheme to try to rid the world of those they deem as being less useful in their grand scheme of things. Thats one of the scarier ideologies connected with the whole AGW religion.

    You dont have to be a qualified scientist to know the history of the planet, and see the climate patterns over many centuries. Sadly, "science" nowadays has become almost totally politicised, to the extent of becoming almost a joke. Its become so tied up with political and economis agendas, that many scientists have lost their true raison d'etre. True Science is all about asking questions, being skeptical, anx seeking answers. In the world of s ience, surely there can be no "signed, sealded and delivered" rationale? The scary thing about so many of these well-funded climate scientists is that they dismiss all opposition using highly emotive vocabulary about their opponents whk dare question the validity of their science. The plain fact is that there are many voices of dissent on this within the world scientific community, and their voices have been silenced on more than one occasion. Some have been fired from their jobs, others have been villified, yet others have had death wishes put upon them.

    Dont you find it interesting in the report above, there is a quote from the World Bank, and quite a hysterical one, at that? Since when did they become experts in Climate Science, and for what reason? The answer is simple, they see big bucks to be earned from this scam, so they join in with their misinformation, to keep the pot boiling and scare the masses. The World Bank says so, so it must be true? Please! Banks have surely lost all respect and credability because of their recent activities. Banks are all about making money for themselves and for their investors and shareholders. They see that a lot of money can be made from AGW hysteria, and they of course want to jump on the bandwagon.

    The group of ecoterrorists gathering for their annual soiree in Doha for the next two weeks are all people with vezted interested in making money, at our expense. Nothing more, nothing less. They wont succeed, because more and more people around the world are waking up to their nonsense and the deception. It makes me feel very sad, that once reputable organisations like Greenpeace and the WWF, which I used to admire and support, have become politicallly and economically so Left Wing, that they have lost the plot. Like someone said recently, they claim to be Green, but are really Red.

    Oh, and by the way. One or two here criticised me for my scientific credentials. Have you examined the scientific credentials of the UN's IPCC, who have organised the Doha Debacle? Its worth a look, to understand the kind of people organising these annual jamborees.

  • -1

    realist

    Thomas, more global warming is caused by one volcanic eruption than is caused by the factories of China in one day, thats a scientific fact. Also, the sun is the main cause of global warming, and sunspots are the main causes of climate change. Just saying.

  • -1

    sailwind

    Actually it seems the planet has been through this kind of thing before. Living breathing life forms that ended up affecting and changing the climate. Yes folks, unregulated dinosaur farts.

    Giant dinosaurs could have warmed the planet with their flatulence, say researchers.

    British scientists have calculated the methane output of sauropods, including the species known as Brontosaurus.

    By scaling up the digestive wind of horses, they estimate that the total population of dinosaurs, produced 520 million tonnes of gas annually.

    They suggest the gas could have been a key factor in the warm climate 150 million years ago.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/17953792

  • 0

    Laguna

    Thats one of the reasons why the climate alarmists have also spoken about human population control. It sounds so much like Nazism when some of them talk about the use of forces sterilization of the masses to achieve this goal.

    Wow. This rant should be enshrined on a rock in Manhattan before the city has to be relocated to the Hampshires. There are people who do not believe that the planet is warming; there are those who do but attribute the warming to other causes; there are people who believe that human activity is a primary cause of warming; and then there are people who compare scientists to the Nazis. The latter might do with a crash course on what it is to be human.

  • 0

    Herve Nmn L'Eisa

    " This rant should be enshrined on a rock in Manhattan before the city has to be relocated to the Hampshires."

    Laguna, perhaps you mean the HAMPTONS which means Long Island, no?

  • 0

    canadianbento

    Global warming or no Global warming, it does not matter, when are Humans going to admit there are too MANY PEOPLE IN THE WORLD. The big disater is COMING...

Login to leave a comment

OR

More in World

View all

View all