With the conference on global warming taking place this week in Stockholm Sweden, is there enough information to make concrete plans as to how it can accomplish what it sets out to do? The recent scandal of falsifying reports in emails, does it make sense to base decisions on half truths or total lies?
Climate change conference on global warming is organized at Copenhagen in Denmark and not in Stockholm, Sweden. The COP15 has started today the 7th and will last up to December 18, 2009.
COP15, Copenhagen is also being called Hopenhagen. There may be some scandals but the conference is significant. You may refer to some hubs about COPENHAGEN AND HOPENHAGEN.
Haha yes he does. I love the fact that he throws huge arguments everywhere and got that wrong XD Still it's not a hugely relevant slip, albeit a funny one
I am more than willing to admit my mistake. I was reviewing the Stockholm agreement and somehow used that conference as the new one. I thank you for the correction and hope that I did not offend you with my huge argument based on a mistaken locale for the current meetings. I hope you would check out everything I say here and verify if I am on track for your edification as well as mine.
It will contribute to global warming through the creation of a lot of hot air and nothing else.
NO, it will be a waste of time (using up lots of energy, btw).
So you claim there is absolutely no global warming taking place?
I didn't say anything about that. I said this conference would be a waste of time.
What do you think should be done to address the situation and find a way to get the science and government to act on it?
The situation that the conference will be a waste of time?
So what should be done outside of the conference taking place?
Climate change, climate change! If you're going to spread fear to the mass of dolts who voted for Obama then you have to use the latest terminology!
I take it you believe there to be no Global Warming affect currently taking place?
No I really don't believe Global warming or Global cooling is occurring!
I'm not sure you could call those people dolts XD If I was in America I would have been stuck in the elections, but voted for Obama just to get Sarah Palin as far away as possible from the White House. Had McCain not picked her I think it might have been closer. Still, that's not really the point of this forum post, and it's away in the past. Sorry for sidetracking!
It doesn't have to be a consensus vote, Individual corporations or nations can participate and let others catch on...
But what would inspire them to act if it would add costs to their products and what possible effect could their small actions prove to make a difference?
Good answer! Scare tactics and accusations only threaten credibility. Reasonable measures should be taken, not some hair brain tax scheme hitched to a science thats no where near fully developed. We should be doing right by the enviroment because its the right thing to do. Why should world governments be able to profit off this? Sounds like they have stolen a page from the televangelist's playbook!
I know! Let's cook up a false crisis and insist the world panic as if the end were coming tomorrow or thereabouts (paging Mr. Gore). That'll give 'em a real kick in the pants!
Insisting on a doomsday scenario, complete with totally unrealistic 'goals' that will never be met and would create economic devastation if they were, instead of promoting environmental protection and the reduction of pollution as ends in themselves may ultimately set back real and attainable improvements world wide.
Your answer evades the issue I am asking of you.
Is there something outside the constraints of the current conference in Sweden that could be done minus all the hype and hoopla that is marring this conference.
How would it look and how could it be initiated?
You're thinking of some centrally planned, obligatory, one-world-government type thing, aren't you?
I am merely asking what you would propose be done. Do you have an idea or not? That is all. I am trying to reason with you and understand if you have a suggestion. I am not proposing any world government scenario. For any plan to work if you have one, there would have to be global cooperation for it to be effective don't you think.
Global warming...It just snowed in Houston at the first of December before our tree leaves even changed color...and fell for Autumn. No Global Warming in "H"town...this year!
There is a part of the scenario explained by scientists that predict the vast changing of typical seasons as we have become used too. Whether or not it is true it has been predicted. A sudden warming is not in the predictions so the recent weather is not a good case to cite if you believe the Glodal Warming is not happening.
rhamson, the problem is scientist have been predicting all kinds of things. In the 70's and late 60's it was an ice age....it never stops. Read some of Al Gore's early writings. He clearly states that skirting the truth is acceptable if the end results are good for the enviroment.....fast forward to 2009.....cap and trade......carbon credits....who's at the center of it all?
I can't understand how anyone with a brain is arguing against global warming. Among people who study it, who have dedicated their lives to the study of earth, it is not a debate.
The issue is curbing the power of industrial companies and setting limits on the amount of CO2 emmissions. It is extremely difficult, seeing as these industries are the backbone of modern infrastructure. Hopefully getting some caps set will be a step in the right direction.
PS. Not to be that guy, but it's in Copenhagen.
...who make a living off it, have become rich because of it, have a vested interest in it...
I don't know what world you are living in, but academics aren't exactly the most money-hungry people ever. There is much more money in the industries they are fighting. Like, waaaay more. It would take quite a conspiracy to falsify all the solid evidence that proves global warming, just in the interest of the few that are trying to profit.
Have you checked out most of their salaries?
Yeah, seems they could do with a bit more, couldn't they?
It's all relative ; compare their salaries with those of oil execs... mmmmmm....
Sorry. You'll have to connect the dots. In an overall view of things you are saying that academics have a longer track record of trying to fool the masses for their own gain than *corporation* *executives*? I'm missing something, right...?
@CJ Wright I understand what you are saying and you can't pick just one thing and say that this statement is true so all of it is true or vice versa.
There is some evidence to what has been put out there that things are different than in the past and that Man has had some effect in it. Whether you want to believe the glaciers receeding or the CO2 emmissions have increased more quickly than in the past there is some credibility to the theory.
Do we have to change to make any real affect on the enviornment is something that we can do if it is neccessary. But how do we find out if it is neccessary if we can't come to an agreement as to how to proceed?
This whole thing has become like a big ball of crap. No matter where you pick at it it still stinks and it gets on you. It happens to both sides of the issue.
By using the KISS method..."Keep it Simple, Stupid"
Facts: Putting known carcinogens in the air is bad for PEOPLE.
Solution: Put less known carcinogens in the air.
I would ask all those who truely believe in global warming to stop driving their cars and adapt a vegan diet....It looks as though its about 50/50 in America, as to those who believe/don't believe. Certainly if 170 million people significantly changed their lifestyles for 10 years there would be an appreciable change in the enviroment if the science is correct. Wouldn't there? Take a pole in LA, I bet its 75% or greater for those who believe global warming is the boogy man. Now log on this afternoon and watch the traffic cams in LA......
You want a tax to support global warming? Fine, tax the crap out of people driving in urban areas.
The only problem with simplifying a solution is what is overlooked. There could be a tax that might supply some solution but going by rough figures without scientific tehory to back it could prove even worse for us in the future. In essence we would have done a lot of uneccessary work and effort for not enough progress and wound up in the same place. Too little too late.
I don't agree that there should be a leave it up to the ones who care attitude when we are all a part of the problem.
Taxes in of themselves solve nothing. No tax will solve global warming, if it in fact global warming does exist and poses the danger some state. If your statement is true, then the opposite is also true. Thereby creating tax incentives for those items that are energy efficent(electric cars, energy efficient homes and appliances) will also provide solutions to global warming....
The same crowd that is so adiment about global warming also believes in the supposed overpopulation crisis. My question to them is this: Isn't Universial health care, vacines, cancer and aids research counter intuitive? Shouldn't we just let natural selection run its course? Apparently not, simply taxing these things solves all the problems...sorry, I just don't see the logic in that.
I don't think you can avoid some sort of tax when coming up with a solution to this possible problem. Tax credits or what have you.
I think if you wish to group people together in one frame of mind then we get back to the big ball of crap situation.
I hear so much against the thoughts and ideas presented with regards to Global Warming and find a wait and see attitude from the anti theorists that I wonder if in fact we we all be subjected to doing nothing in the process. This will eliminate any more discussion and allow us to wait for our fate whatever it is. I really get tired of the do nothing that costs money answer to these problems.
I disagree with this. Why are taxes better or necessary? When government and certain scientists can't be completely transparent about this, how do I see what good the taxes are doing?
There was a good oped yesterday by Eugene Robinson. It points out how the discussion isn't focused on all the right things, and also points out that global warming isn't necessarily all gloom and doom.
Cooling could be just as bad and probably worse, but I'm not convinced that it's a man-made problem either way. I don't disagree that we could stand to limit our use of resources, but I believe a model offering incentives rather than taxes would be a better alternative "solution".
What do you expect rhamson? The public approval rating of congress is below 30%...they are the ones writing the tax laws.....The head of the ways and means commitee apparently doesn't pay taxes.....It's your "slime on the hill" thats causing all of this upheaval. Government is NOT the solution to this problem. Government may be able to help enforce or encourage a solution, but in the end its up to the people.
grouping people is normal. Its human nature. We are social creatures. Granted we are capable of indipendent thought...well some of us are!LOL (NOT DIRECTED AT YOU!) There is no doubt that "herd mentality" has gotten us into the mess we are in.
I'm not saying only those who care should pay for a solution. My point was if its true, then prove it with real time empirical data. Thats SCIENCE! The other point is this, how much do people believe in the theory if they aren't willing to put it into practice? Believing in a theory isn't going to solve global warming if it exist. Scientific method is hypotheses, test/retest, collect data, conclude.....we are skipping the most important part! Observing the ice pack and seeing it melt concludes nothing! Finding carbon particles in the ice only proves that there are carbon particles in the ice, NOT how they got there! The facts are there is not enough empirical data available to be making drastic statements and decisions. Especially if those descisions are being influenced by those who stand to profit from them significantly.
Well the scientists have shot themselves in the foot with this gerrymandering of the statements and evidence of Global Warming. The argument carries much weight for the anti Global Warming groups when proof of a misdeed can be pointed out. The tendency to allow this to cloud the other facts is dangerous and foolish if the Glabal Warming is taking place.
I agree that before we can make any determined effort in deciding the move towards pushing tax dollars and laws to stem it we must have a full understanding of it. A rush towards regulating and especially penal lawsuits based on shoddy research will only create more chaos and government corruption and take us farther from the goal.
In the meantime I am doing what I can by driving a sub compact, lowering my thermostat and turning off my lights as much as I can.
I'm saying the problem is that you are looking for a "plan."
There is 324.16 miles between Stockholm and Copenhagen I am told...
It was one group of about 6 scientists who decided to falsify things. That does not make the entire theory false or a scam.
I believe in global warming (generally speaking). However I suspect that this conference will be a lot of hot air. I am not saying they shouldn't have it (necessarily), I just think that governments rarely do what they say they are going to do, in any case.
I think, however, that we can all agree that POLLUTION is a bad thing. This is one thing that has China worried, because they are building coal plants like there is no tomorrow ( ) but the government knows that people in their cities are walking around with face masks on, on some days...
Anyway, I'd say this:
fossil fuels keep you tied into the Middle-East: BAD
fossil fuels keep you at the mercy of gasoline companies: BAD
fossil fuels make an unholy mess (go to Alberta and have a look: BAD
fossil fuel production pollutes rivers and lakes, and freshwater is one of those things we might want to preserve... : so BAD
In addition, chopping down the world's great Rain Forests is a crime, in my book, an "objective wrong."
In other words, ditch global warming science if you want. The issues are the same -- hydrocarbons are not good news. Chopping down forests is not good news. Polluting sources of drinking water is not good news.
Of course, for anyone who owns a company, factory (or a car), the idea of breaking the monopoly of big power companies by promoting local wind and solar generators is good news -- generating electricity for free is good for the bottom line...
Think about it. The rule of thumb is always to follow the money trail... Who stands to gain from nothing being done?
The economy does not have to suffer -- in fact, forcing a society to convert to a new way of life has to create huge numbers of jobs (and, as I say, companies that can save power and energy costs become MORE competitive...).
So, I repeat -- who stands to gain from nothing being done.
As a Canadian, I know the answer very well. We have an "oil" prime minister from an "oil" region of the country, watch him dance, this week...
I'm sure it will be hot air, our Prime Minister is going even though he doesn't believe we have problems and has refused to follow most guidelines. He is doing it for political reasons alone...
GREAT RESPONSE! THIS IS THE PROBLEM!!!! People don't want to admit that they may have been had, duped, led astray, run amuck..... If you do the research into how data is obtained. If you do the research on the scientist and supporters. You start to see the idea that this issue has become tainted by politics.
The issue is NOT Global Warming. The issue is being better stewards of the enviroment. Plain and simple. The rest is picking sides and name calling.....
If more people took this attitude, a lot more might get done.
Your statement is a bit duplicitous. On one hand you state that there is no Global Warming and on the other hand we could better served by reducing it or the very least watching out for it happening.
Does the theory have any merit if this is what you are saying?
No but I guess you did not understand mine. If there is no Global Warming why would we have to change any of our habits to keep it from happening?
Where did I say there was no Global Warming? I stated "The issue is NOT Global Warming."
These scientist, activist and especially politicians are being duplicitous. Is it not duplicitous to believe that the "slime on the hill" is the only way to solve global warming?
No the theory has no merit in the context it is proposed. The theory is a radical attempt at getting to a worthy goal(getting the world to be better stewards of the enviroment). The issue of Global Warming is a vehichle, not a phenomenon. Problem, the vehichle is loaded down with crack pots, criminals and opportunist.
Do you know how Average Global Temps are calculated?
How many methods are there?
What are the constraints, assumptions and exceptions built into the current mechanisms used to measure global warming?
What do scientist who support the theory of Global Warming believe is the key contributing factor?
What is the source of the key contributing factor?
How are these key contributing factors measured?
Statistically speaking, is taking an average of a set of averages acceptable?
What is standard deviation?
Would standard deviation or averages be better suited for establishing whats normal and abnormal temperature wise?
Now, Those are all legitimate questions. Questions that the public should have researched answers on before establishing a firm opinion on this issue. Most haven't, most wont. Instead they have listened to hollywood and congress.....WOW!
The information is out there. Its pretty boring, I'll give you that. I don't pretend that if you do the research you will arrive at my opinion. I just don't get the feel most have made any attempt at truly looking into the issue.
Ok I get what you are saying and I agree that the sensationalism the press is putting on it seems to be another media topic of the hour.
What scares me is the people that say all of it is bunk and that there is no need for further study of the climactic conditions based on the circus in Copenhagen.
What are they realy saying? To me it sounds like, don't railroad me into a tax thats going to hurt me needlessly while crippling the economy. They smell a rat, and I think they are right.
If global warming wakes up the electorate, it has done America a lot of good already.
You really can't follow a conversation can you? The people that are the naysayers are who I was referring too that espouse all the bunk.
You and the rest of the drones never say anything of consequence!
Yeah, about that...do you think that just maybe I was making a point about the doomsday hucksters being responsible for turning people even more skeptical and suspicious of the 'science' and setting back the interests of serious environmental protection?
That's the most lucid and well thought out thing I think I have heard you say so far.
What can be done along positive lines that could ensure responsible policy and action without the hype from the politicians?
India has already declared unilaterally to cut its carbon emissions by 20 to 25 percent. Hopefully, others will follow the good gesture.
Likely America will announce some thing like that in Copenhagen.
China has denied today of imposing any treaty that is not unanimous.
by Judy Specht3 years ago
It is 33 degrees as I write, 10:45 am, in sunny northern California. Have been wishing for global warming as I watch my tropical plant freeze. Why have we not heard about this story? Did you...
by Sychophantastic2 years ago
These are results of a public policy poll:Q1 Do you believe global warming is a hoax, ornot?Do ................................................................... 37%Do not...
by Holle Abee5 months ago
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/0 … w-settled/
by ThunderKeys5 years ago
I'm confused. I've read and heard arguments that global warming is really just part of a natural temperature change process for the earth. I've also read that it's completely man-made? Is it one or both of these? Please...
by sannyasinman6 years ago
An independent weather forecaster who tells the truth - a rare commodity . . . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwyjsJJr … ded#at=164
by Deforest20 months ago
We always impute global warming to the excess of carbon monoxide in the atmosphere. My theory is the following one : the Vietnam war extended from 1954 to 1975, if I refer to this event in our history is because it is...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.