[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Heh. And a guy who just committed 30,000 more troops to a war his predecessor was blasted for picks up his nobel "peace" prize this week.

Nice too see that the moonbat crowd is consistent with their protests... oh, wait a minute.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Bush was never "blasted" for Afghanistan

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Bush was never "blasted" for Afghanistan

Correct. Almost everyone agreed that Afghanistan was a good idea. It was Iraq that people didn't like.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

Are you kidding me? All those blue triangles on the graph that have a value of either 1 or -1 and that are labeled 'Amplitude SI'!

No I'm not kidding you Warren Pease. The little blue triangles on the graph that have a value of either 1 or -1 are labeled Corr. Ann. Amp. SI/ΔT; meaning those triangles represent the correlation coefficients between the amplitudes of the Intensity of Solar Irradiance and the fluctuations of temperature from the standard temperature (273.15 K). The amplitude intensity of SI (W/m^2) has actually fluctuated from between -1.25 to 2.2. (not illustrated in the charts concerning '85 to present in which the amplitudes of SI have all been positive) Now, before you marginalize the significance of SI amplitude fluctuation, remember we're often talking about temperature changes in the hundredths of a degree Celsius. You know, fair perspective and all that.

Point me to anywhere in that website where he shows he's using 10 year averages. Am I the only one who thinks that 'Ann.' referred to annual? I searched looking for '10', 'year', 'average', 'trend', 'smooth' individually and none of those terms (if found at all) demonstrate that he's done any such thing.

He cites first that the amplitudes of SI have been positive throughout the 10 years preceding the "warmest year on record" (mine) and the chart clearly shows exceedingly high amplitudes of SI throughout most of that 10 year period.

Perfect example of psuedoscience Strong conclusions, but lacking any supporting data or logic.

I'm not sure this is fair. What you've linked here is the citation of the paper we've been using for our discussion and not the paper itself found here. The paper is using data compiled from the NOAA database on temperature anomalies from '79 to present, monthly reports of temperature recorded via NSSTC, and references seven additional, peer-reviewed studies including those on the relationship between TSI and climate.

I'm not sure pseudoscience can be defined by whether or not Warren Pease supports the conclusion.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Correct. Almost everyone agreed that Afghanistan was a good idea. It was Iraq that people didn't like.

Aside from the fact that action in Iraq enjoyed overwhelming support from both sides of the aisle and how one man stood opposed to a "surge" has now launched one of his own; this was all very interesting to watch. A new President, all growed up and learning the art of politics. Afghanistan was the rallying call of those opposed to action in Iraq. Now that Iraq has been deemed a net-success and we're now more actively engaged in Afghanistan; the OBL "boogeyman" appears just as elusive as the WMDs of Iraq. Funny how quickly action in Afghanistan has lost its luster.

[BadKosh]

So, with fudged data, the 'correct formulas' would give incorrect results because of the data.
Hanson and the NASA Institute must be having a bonfire.

Perhaps the formulas used are wrong to make the data look correct.
Anyway you look at it the credibility of the pop science is in jeopardy as well as the 'scientists' involved.
The mainstream media has been silent too which suggests they are in on this too. They don't HAVE credibility though.

[Doofy]

In other news, the IPCC can't read...
BBC News - Himalayan glaciers melting deadline 'a mistake'

The UN panel on climate change warning that Himalayan glaciers could melt to a fifth of current levels by 2035 is wildly inaccurate, an academic says.
J Graham Cogley, a professor at Ontario Trent University, says he believes the UN authors got the date from an earlier report wrong by more than 300 years.
He is astonished they "misread 2350 as 2035".

...
In its 2007 report, the Nobel Prize-winning Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said: "Glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate.

"Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometres by the year 2035," the report said.

...

But Professor Cogley has found a 1996 document by a leading hydrologist, VM Kotlyakov, that mentions 2350 as the year by which there will be massive and precipitate melting of glaciers.
"The extrapolar glaciation of the Earth will be decaying at rapid, catastrophic rates - its total area will shrink from 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometres by the year 2350," Mr Kotlyakov's report said.
Mr Cogley says it is astonishing that none of the 10 authors of the 2007 IPCC report could spot the error and "misread 2350 as 2035".

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

In other news, the IPCC can't read...
BBC News - Himalayan glaciers melting deadline 'a mistake'

Does the 2007 report reference the 1996 document? If not, J Graham Cogley is doing exactly what he's accusing the IPCC of: passing off unsubstantiated information as fact.

[Chuckit]

The similarity of the numbers is awfully coincidental.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

The similarity of the numbers is awfully coincidental.

no question about that. but without substantiation, his claim is no better than that of the people he's trying to discredit.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Does the 2007 report reference the 1996 document? If not, J Graham Cogley is doing exactly what he's accusing the IPCC of: passing off unsubstantiated information as fact.

Your game's up. AGW has been found to be complete BS, fabricated by governments with the willing assistance of "scientists". Everyone knows this, including yourself. The sooner you realise this, the less of an embarrassing time you'll have.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

no question about that. but without substantiation, his claim is not better than that of the people he's trying to discredit.

Which, logically, means it's all complete BS and we should take no notice whatsoever of any of it.

[Wiskedjak]

so, it's ok to make up facts to prove your claim that others are making up facts? all you've shown is that you're ok with opinion presented as fact as long as it's in line with your opinion.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Your game's up. AGW has been found to be complete BS, fabricated by governments with the willing assistance of "scientists".

Your proof of this claim?

[Orion27]

Here is a video of a very recent televised debate on Climate between Marc Morano, a former communications director of the U.S. Senate Environment Committee and Professor Andrew Watson of the University of East Anglia. Unfortunately, Morano keeps being interrupted by the moderator and you can see for yourself the arrogance and condescending attitude on display by Watson. The debate culminates in Watson calling calling Morano an asshole. This is East Anglia up front and personal. Imagine how they behave behind closed doors.
Tempers Flare In Climate Change Flap - Coop's Corner - CBS News

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

So, let's uncouple the political debate and just do the science.

Glad to see I can keep pulling your hypocrisy up on every page

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Here is a video of a very recent televised debate on Climate between Marc Morano, a former communications director of the U.S. Senate Environment Committee and Professor Andrew Watson of the University of East Anglia. Unfortunately, Morano keeps being interrupted by the moderator and you can see for yourself the arrogance and condescending attitude on display by Watson. The debate culminates in Watson calling calling Morano an asshole. This is East Anglia up front and personal. Imagine how they behave behind closed doors.
Tempers Flare In Climate Change Flap - Coop's Corner - CBS News

Ad hominem?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Your proof of this claim?

I have no proof of anything at all. But I'm not the one attempting to solve any "problem" with that lack of proof.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Here is a video of a very recent televised debate on Climate between Marc Morano, a former communications director of the U.S. Senate Environment Committee and Professor Andrew Watson of the University of East Anglia. Unfortunately, Morano keeps being interrupted by the moderator and you can see for yourself the arrogance and condescending attitude on display by Watson. The debate culminates in Watson calling calling Morano an asshole. This is East Anglia up front and personal. Imagine how they behave behind closed doors.
Tempers Flare In Climate Change Flap - Coop's Corner - CBS News

Umm... seems the opposite to me.

Marc Morano was shouting and being accusatory, arrogant, and condescending toward Sean Watson.

When Sean Watson calmly explains, Marc Morano would interrupt, laugh, and say words like "Oh", "wow".

From the article:

During a live television faceoff hosted by the BBC, Marc Morano, a former communications director of the U.S. Senate Environment Committee and now an editor with the Web site Climate Depot squared off against Professor Andrew Watson of the University of East Anglia in eastern England. It didn't take long before the two got in each other's face and Watson became increasingly annoyed with Morano's loud interruptions. He finally lost it by the end when the anchor thanked the participants.

"What an asshole," Watson said.

Not a very professorial reaction but Morano was being a bit of a nudnik, IMHO.

Yeah, Morano was being a nudnik and Watson lost his cool.


By the way, it is me or does Sean Watson look exactly like Richard Dawkins. Even down to his mannerism.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I have no proof of anything at all. But I'm not the one attempting to solve any "problem" with that lack of proof.

Sure you are. You're trying to solve the problem of people, who think humans are wrecking the world, wanting to change your way of life. If you're going to offer counter arguments to their claims, your counter arguments should be more credible than you claim their's to be, not less.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Sure you are. You're trying to solve the problem of people, who think humans are wrecking the world, wanting to change your way of life. If you're going to offer counter arguments to their claims, your counter arguments should be more credible than you claim their's to be, not less.

Here inlies the problem; they want to change your way of life too often without consideration for the repercussions of their own lifestyles or worse, their proposals.

No one here can know whose carbon footprint is larger or why one might be driving an older, less efficient car. I always thought proselytizing was somewhat faux pas around here.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Sure you are. You're trying to solve the problem of people, who think humans are wrecking the world, wanting to change your way of life. If you're going to offer counter arguments to their claims, your counter arguments should be more credible than you claim their's to be, not less.

The burden of proof isn't on me.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

The burden of proof isn't on me.

if you're going to submit arguments to support a claim, then there absolutely is a burden of proof on you. otherwise, you must limit yourself to statements such as "your evidence doesn't support your claims".

if you're going to make claims, you must back them up.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

if you're going to submit arguments to support a claim, then there absolutely is a burden of proof on you. otherwise, you must limit yourself to statements such as "your evidence doesn't support your claims".

if you're going to make claims, you must back them up.

I make no claims other than "your claims are BS which you can't back up". Since your side seeks to change my life rather than my side seeks to change your life, the burden of proof is on you.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I make no claims other than "your claims are BS which you can't back up".

And, the burden is on you to prove that the evidence used to back up those claims is BS.

A man is accused of murder. The prosecution presents evidence backing up that claim. The defense says "your claims are BS". The judge says "oh well, I guess that's that"?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

And, the burden is on you to prove that the evidence used to back up those claims is BS.

A man is accused of murder. The prosecution presents evidence backing up that claim. The defense says "your claims are BS". The judge says "oh well, I guess that's that"?

Presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The burden's on you.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The burden's on you.

And, who decides if the doubt is reasonable? The burden is on the defense to prove that the evidence supporting the claims are unreasonable.

Clearly, there are a lot of people (consider them among the members of the jury) convinced that the evidence supporting the claim of human-caused climate change is reasonable. The burden is on you (and those who agree with you) to prove that the evidence presented is *un*reasonable. There are only a few people (other members of the jury) who will accept your "your claims are BS which you can't back up" defense ... and in those cases you're preaching to the choir.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

And, who decides if the doubt is reasonable?

That would be myself and the rest of the jury.

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

There are only a few people (other members of the jury) who will accept your "your claims are BS which you can't back up" defense

If by "only a few people" you actually mean "a majority of people" then yes, I agree.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

And, the burden is on you to prove that the evidence used to back up those claims is BS.

A man is accused of murder. The prosecution presents evidence backing up that claim. The defense says "your claims are BS". The judge says "oh well, I guess that's that"?

Wiskedjak, I think that the term is : "Beyond a shadow of a doubt". People who say that climate change is caused by humans have not proved anything 'beyond a shadow of a doubt'.

Climategate reveals 'the most influential tree in the world'

[BadKosh]

The data and information used by the GW fanatics has been found to be suspect, so now the GW types have to prove it using real data, which they don't have.

NASA's Hanson is also mixed up in this according to some sources, and the press has by their 'head in the sand' reporting of the story make it look like orchestrated propaganda all aimed at creating that one world government. Perhaps this is why the Dem controlled congress is ignoring the general populations wishes and spending us toward that third world status?

[ebuddy]

Club of Rome

"The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself."

The whistle has yet to be blown. Follow the dollar or... euro as it were.

[stupendousman]

You know the "jig is up" when the mainstream media refuses to even report that there's any controversy.

ClimateGate Held Hostage: Day 14

Not that it's not being reported at all though....

Climategate reveals 'the most influential tree in the world' - Telegraph

The Telegraph explains and ties together the "hide the decline" effort with Mann's scientifically flawed "hockey stick", showing they are doing this stuff on purpose and it's neither an accident or them really thinking this is proper "science".

You could say that it was all a big misunderstanding and that the raw data really shows what's been claimed, but it's either been destroyed or proven inaccurate (Siberian tree data).

As it's been stated, the burden of proof isn't on those who don't believe that there's been any AGW. It's on the other side, and it's clear the other side has been faking the evidence. That doesn't mean that man does not contribute to warming - it just means that the evidence that he does and is causing a soon to start warming catastrophe is a manufactured myth based on guessing, unproven theory, politics and possibly even good intentions. That's not enough though for the world to change it's lifestyle drastically, in my opinion.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

You know the "jig is up" when the mainstream media refuses to even report that there's any controversy.

Well... there is this blurb from World News anchor Charles Gibson; “The government said today that one offshoot of the recession is cleaner air. Total greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. fell 2.2% last year, the decline due in part to record high oil prices, which resulted in less driving.”

YAYY! Poverty is the answer to global warming. At least this explains our current economic policy. If we could just create a dependency class salivating for the government nipple... Cap and Trade.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Wiskedjak, I think that the term is : "Beyond a shadow of a doubt". People who say that climate change is caused by humans have not proved anything 'beyond a shadow of a doubt'.

I guess the rest of "your side" won't call you on this, so I have to: what?

Where do you get "shadow of a doubt?" No one has to prove anything "beyond a shadow of a doubt" – there's always doubt, with everything.

I've had this conversation with ebuddy before re: measure of uncertainty before action should be taken, in two circumstances: WMDs and the war in Iraq, and climate change. His response showed an incredible amount of cognitive dissonance: he said that he agreed with Bush that as long as there was a "1% chance that WMDs existed, then that possibility was enough to justify going to war with Iraq (the "1% Doctrine"). However, when it came to the situation of climate change, he demanded that climate scientists show with "unequivocal proof" (I believe that was his term) that AGW was real, etc. etc. before any action should be taken.

In any case, your statement just reminded me of that.

greg

[mattyb]

So, you have a chemical combination, that you claim alters fundamentally the climate on earth. You then claim that I, as part of the human race, should alter my behaviour based on your claims. You also want people who have not had the opportunity to exploit this chemical combination to not even get the chance. You want them and their children to continue to suffer because there might just be a shred of reality maybe someday in the information that you have gathered but that you don't really like sharing with people who disagree with you.

Do this instead of ranting and raving. Force your politicians, your NGOs, your GW/CC groups to stop using any polluting medium to travel (I'll give you a bike or a sailboat). To stop eating all meat. No farmed fish, no free range chicken. Stop wearing jeans, due to the overuse of land for cotton. Do this for five or ten years, then come back to me.

It hypocrisy. Its about reigning in success. Its about power, and control. It has nothing whatsoever to do with climate. Or science.

[BadKosh]

And without out knowing the validity of the data they still make these claims?
How do they KNOW the data is correct, or even the formulas?
Someones already tampered with it for political and financial gains. The motive wasn't to make the data more precise, but to fit into a political/pop-science mold the political and media types would think was actual science.
Now when the data turns up tainted, and the conclusions look like they were cooked to sell their side the media is nowhere to be found, and the politicians are just ignoring it as they have already made up their minds (Garbage in - Gospel out)

I think they wont bother to see the forest for the trees.
It upsets the gravy train.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

I think they wont bother to see the forest for the trees. It upsets the gravy train.

FOREST ?!??!! TREES !!!??!!!?

Stop BIGCO making money !! Stop driving your car !! Give us more money because we know what we're talking about !!! We know how to run your lives better than you do !!! We have graphs !!

[smacintush]

50,000 square miles of carpet
900 kilometers of computer cable
140 aircraft.
1,200 limousines.
40,584 tons of CO2 in 12 days.

Welcome to Copenhagen.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

50,000 square miles of carpet
900 kilometers of computer cable
140 aircraft.
1,200 limousines.
40,584 tons of CO2 in 12 days.

Do as I say, don't do as I do.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

FOREST ?!??!! TREES !!!??!!!?

Stop BIGCO making money !! Stop driving your car !! Give us more money because we know what we're talking about !!! We know how to run your lives better than you do !!! We have graphs !!

Its all about the new world order and world government. Its a concerted effort to keep the US from being the worlds police force that removed bad guys and dictators from office. The worlds thugs(who are good friends with 0bama, and the leftist radicals worldwide and the dictators all over) will be able to make this highly corrupt new world governement at the expense of the successful western countries. It started with the Dems allowing the financial institutions to fail, and then raising taxes to keep unemployment up, and printing money to make the Dollar even more worthless. Crap-n-trade might be next after the healthcare non-reform bill is forced down our collective throats.

[mattyb]

Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges

On a normal day, Majken Friss Jorgensen, managing director of Copenhagen's biggest limousine company, says her firm has twelve vehicles on the road. During the "summit to save the world", which opens here tomorrow, she will have 200.

"We thought they were not going to have many cars, due to it being a climate convention," she says. "But it seems that somebody last week looked at the weather report."

Ms Jorgensen reckons that between her and her rivals the total number of limos in Copenhagen next week has already broken the 1,200 barrier. The French alone rang up on Thursday and ordered another 42. "We haven't got enough limos in the country to fulfil the demand," she says. "We're having to drive them in hundreds of miles from Germany and Sweden."

LMFAO.

[BadKosh]

Business Fumes Over Carbon Dioxide Rule - WSJ.com

Officials gather in Copenhagen this week for an international climate summit, but business leaders are focusing even more on Washington, where the Obama administration is expected as early as Monday to formally declare carbon dioxide a dangerous pollutant.(OMG!!!)

An "endangerment" finding by the (politically motivated)Environmental Protection Agency could pave the way for the government to require businesses that emit carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases to make costly(higher taxes designed to ruin those industries) changes in machinery to reduce emissions -- even if Congress doesn't pass pending climate-change legislation. EPA action to regulate emissions could affect the U.S. economy more directly, and more quickly, than any global deal inked in the Danish capital, where no binding agreement is expected.

================================================== ================

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/interna...yvy19b0ZTHaGwO

COPENHAGEN -- Shakespeare's Marcellus was right. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

In this hotbed of homogeneity, where global warming is a sacred assumption for the faithful, 15,000 people will come together from 192 countries to pray for two weeks over what can be done to save the Earth from certain doom. Few places are better suited to handle the throngs of unquestioning believers who will journey from around the globe.

Dissent is not tolerated, and diversity -- in any form other than biodiversity -- is not welcome here.

But it turns out that Denmark's big claim to greenery isn't quite so impressive when you find out that they do not include one of their biggest and dirtiest industries -- shipping -- in calculating their annual carbon footprint.

That's because the last great world climate treaty, Kyoto, does not make them include their nasty shipping business in the calculation. No wonder the Danes liked that so much.

Even if President Obama gives away the farm when he arrives next week and signs some drastic pledge, it will be a treaty that must be ratified by the Senate.

His Democratic majority dwindles to basically nothing without members from coal states, heavy-industry states and other states where people generally would like to find a job.

But this crowd gathering here is far worse than just a bunch of hand-wringing Hamlets dithering in Denmark.

Some 40,000 tons of carbon will be spewed getting this crowd together and keeping them in comfort.

That is the daily amount of carbon dioxide produced by 30 of the world's smaller countries, according to UN statistics.

[BadKosh]

And this from John R. Lott, Jr., economist and author of "Freedomnomics."

FOXNews.com - What Are Global Warming Supporters Trying to Hide?


Why are global warming advocates so secretive about their data? So far, the spotlight has been on the University of East Anglia and its refusal to release their surface temperature data, by far the most comprehensive long-term worldwide surface data available, but global warming advocates reassure us that this shouldn’t really concern us because some other data sources reportedly show the same thing. Unfortunately, the problem of secretiveness is hardly limited to the University of East Anglia.

Take Queen’s University in Belfast. It has amassed one of the longest-running data collections on tree rings, spanning 7,000 years and ranging from over 1,500 sites around the world. How much a tree grows each season can tell us a lot about temperatures and other climate related variables. You would expect the institution to be proud of this enormous data set they have so diligently created and expect it to want to share the data with anyone who is interested. Not so. Indeed, scholars have now been trying for two-and-a-half years to go through the UK's Freedom of Information Acts to force Queen's University to release the data, but to no avail.

Even our own NASA, which has been caught in really embarrassing mistakes not correctly identifying which years have had the warmest temperatures, refuses to give out its data so that others can figure out inconsistent temperature estimates in the past. In NASA’s case they have refused giving out this data for almost two years. On Thursday, Christopher Horner, a fellow with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, announced that he would give NASA until the end of the year to honor his Freedom of Information Request or he will be forced to bring a lawsuit.

As with the University of East Anglia, all that researchers really wanted, from both Queen’s University and NASA, was the data used in papers that global warming advocates had already published. The researchers requesting the data required no special effort if those with the data had simply been willing to turn over just the data that they had already used.

NASA faces a particularly embarrassing position. In 2007, Steve McIntyre, who runs ClimateAudit.org pointed out serious (though very simple) math errors with NASA’s published work and that, correcting for these, 1998 was not the warmest year, 1934 was. And the third hottest year on record was 1921, not 2006. Instead of the majority of the 10 hottest years occurring since 1990, six of the top 10 had occurred before 1940. Or so everyone thought. NASA did eventually release the corrected average temperature estimates. But NASA, without clearly explaining what it was doing, later recalculated the series again and, somehow, 1934 is yet again, said to be slightly cooler than either 1998 and 2006.

As with all these errors, how many more errors might be lurking in the other estimates made at these climate research institutions? On the other hand, perhaps the latest revision was a statistical "adjustment," similar to what apparently happened at East Anglia. Nobody outside a small group at NASA is privileged to know. Given the political advocacy of NASA’s top climate scientist, James Hansen, we are at least suspicious. The U.N.'s announced investigation into the leaked University of East Anglia should be extended to these other sources that have refused to provide their data as well.

The two institutions of University of East Anglia and NASA have provided the primary data used by global warming advocates. With an alleged increase in global temperatures of about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit since the middle of the 19th century, even very small corrections or adjustments can potentially make a big difference. There are also significant differences in the data between surface and atmospheric temperatures that might be explained by these data mysteries.

This is the age of computers and Web sites. If the institutions have the data sets available on their computers, they can easily be put up on a Web site for the world to see. No researcher should be trusted if he or she is not willing to share their data gladly. Are we now to believe that NASA, the very institution who managed to put man on the moon, finds the task of uploading data to a Web site too difficult?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Do as I say, don't do as I do.

We have technology. EVERYTHING they will do or say could have been done via video teleconference. The fact that they were more interested in having parties and making a big PR splash tells you a lot about the purpose of the "conference".

[sek929]

Stay with me here.

If 100 American soldiers die securing the freedoms for millions of Americans, then that is a gain, correct? Kill one to save a hundred, right?

If the summit produces 40,000 tons of CO2, yet raises awareness for new legislature that will reduce billions of tons of CO2 in the future, that is also a gain, right?

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Stay with me here.

If 100 American soldiers die securing the freedoms for millions of Americans, then that is a gain, correct? Kill one to save a hundred, right?

If the summit produces 40,000 tons of CO2, yet raises awareness for new legislature that will reduce billions of tons of CO2 in the future, that is also a gain, right?

If there are 300,000,000 million Americans with a carbon footprint, and 1% of the population are elites who have grossly disproportionate carbon footprints, i,e government bureaucrats, hollywood elitists, elected officials, corporate lobbyists and media elites, and that 1% proscribe the parameters of my family's lifestyle, to the exclusion of themselves, that's a net gain right?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Stay with me here.

If 100 American soldiers die securing the freedoms for millions of Americans, then that is a gain, correct? Kill one to save a hundred, right?

If the summit produces 40,000 tons of CO2, yet raises awareness for new legislature that will reduce billions of tons of CO2 in the future, that is also a gain, right?

Why would you want to reduce billions of tons of CO2? Do you want the trees to die of suffocation or something? I mean, you know we pump commercial food greenhouses full of CO2 so the plants grow larger and yield more food, no?

You probably mean:

Originally Posted by sek929 

If the summit produces 40,000 tons of CO2, yet raises awareness for new legislature that will increase tax revenue by billions in the future, that is also a gain, right?

[sek929]

Your mistaking me for somebody who has bought into AGW hook, line and sinker.

I was simply playing devil's advocate.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Your mistaking me for somebody who has bought into AGW hook, line and sinker.

I was simply playing devil's advocate.

More CO2 = taller, larger plants. *cough*

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

More CO2 = taller, larger plants. *cough*

More forestation, bigger heat sink.