Climate Change Schemers in Mexico

[boarderbloke]

Read this actical "boys", it says it ALL.........

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/2/pruden-turn-out-the-lights-the-party-s-over/

[gregpet]

We better tax the heck out of all the green house gasses we are emitting.

[URL="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/20/physicist-says-fossil-fuel-burning-is-insignificant-in-the-global-carbon-pool/"]Really [/URL]

<b>In summary, the total amount of post-industrial fossil fuel burned to date (and expressed as kilograms of carbon) represents less than 1% of the global bio-available carbon pools.</b>

Really, less than 1%. Maybe that bright yellow ball of fire in the sky has more to do with the earth's climate than the alarmists think(personally I don't think they think at all). When the sun is hotter the earth is hotter, when the sun is cooler the earth is cooler. Whooda thunk it, way too simple. Gotta complicate it like a CWB program.

[parsley]

Is there a different tax%-formula for icey global warming?

http://www.emirates247.com/news/world/at-least-60-killed-by-cold-snap-across-europe-2010-12-03-1.324411

[chuckChuck]

Parslley. A single cold snap in Europe or North America has no relationship to overall climate change. Weather will still vary year to year,day to day, location to location.

The science based on warming is based on average temperatures trends of land and water. For example parts of northern Canada have warmed much faster than other parts. Ice coverage in the artic is in decline. These are facts.

Your anecdotal observations about weather are not relevant. Long term data collected and analysed by scientists who are trained to do so is the only way to know what is really going on.

Further, all major insurance providers are well aware that extreme weather events are increasing and causing more claims. This fits into the predictions of many climate scientists.

The debate about warming is largely over. How much is caused by human activity is still open for debate. The decline in Artic ice and the ice pack over Greenland is fact.

The long term impacts of global warming are still not clear.

What is open to debate is what we should do about it and how we should do it. This is a policy issue.

There isn't anyone in Government who is saying that warming is not occurring. The question is how do we protect our economic interests while at the same time reduce our greenhouse emissions.

The only industries that would not benefit from increased efficiencies that come with reduced energy consumption is energy producers in the fossil energy business who are worried about taxes and reduced consumption.

But when energy efficiencies are implemented productivity goes up which is good for most businesses.

Space heating for example. An energy efficient building is cheaper to operate, saving lots of money for the owners that easily pays for the increased construction costs over time, of making it more efficient. It is good investment and lowers greenhouse gas emissions and pollution. Why are we not putting high energy efficiency into the building code? We are one of the coldest inhabited countries in the world.

High priced energy is coming, it is just a matter of time. Economies and businesess that are not able to transition to higher priced energy will suffer.

[Kodiak]

If it gets any colder we'll ALL be talking Eskimo!!

Then where will we do our "cleavage research?" Too funny...........


The last global warming conference ever?

This global-warming/climate-change stuff is a great racket. Over in England right now, they're locked in the jaws of a very early freeze-up. The roads are iced, the plows overworked, and people are angry. But there's a precious subset of the English population that are not enduring the frigid and premature torments of a northern winter. They're the climate-change activists, bureaucrats, politicians, puppeteers and NGOs -- the class of professional alarmists who've been banging on about global warming for close on two decades now. This bunch has exempted itself from the rigors of English November, traded their sackcloth and ashes for sun-wear and tropical breezes.

They're toasting their pasty, righteous, caterwauling epidermi on the golden hot sands of Cancun, Mexico, flopped out amid the bikinis and barbeques while they attempt to spell out a future of rationing and want for all the rest of us. Flown there on taxpayer or foundation money, meeting up with all their buddies from the bust that was Copenhagen, the grim, grey priesthood of "sustainable" living are convening in one of the great sybaritic strips of the entire Western world. The monks are in the cathouse.

But hey, if you're going to do Armageddon -- do it in Cancun. The apocalypse at the all-you-can-eat buffet. Parasailing to Armageddon.

Does not one of the great minds decoding next century's weather see the brain-splitting contradiction of holding a conference warning of the imminent threat of global warming in a venue that mainly exists because people fly there to get warmer? That's right, people spend money to fly to Cancun mainly because it's warmer there than where they live. In essence, Cancun is what the global warming crowd are, otherwise, warning us about.

Perhaps at some level of instinct they do know. Perhaps they know that this show of theirs is on its last legs, the jig is up, the great game is over. After the unsuccessful 2009 Copenhagen conference, they had to have realized that even Al Gore and all Al Gore's grim little men would never be able to put the whole rickety, tendentious machine back together again. After Copenhagen, and especially after Climategate, even the true believers must have lost heart. Witness this year's confabulation. Notice who's not there?

Last year, even the Golden One, Barack Obama, swept dramatically into Denmark. It was the venue for all the A-list politicians. Prime ministers and presidents were everywhere. This year, the world's leaders have stayed away. Even the press, whose Cancun presence is down considerably compared to Copenhagen, smells the decay of a cause.

Some countries have made it clear that they no longer are even pretending to play the global-warming abatement game. "Japan will not inscribe its target under the Kyoto protocol on any conditions or under any circumstances," declared Jun Arima, deputy director-general for environmental affairs at Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. Given that his was the country where the Kyoto Protocol was signed, it's a powerful blow to the Gore-ish forces. Perhaps Japan will get one of those cute Fossil of the Day Awards that Canada so excels at collecting.

Could this be the last global warming conference? It's possible. The environmentalists and the activists have had a tin ear and a surplus of righteousness from the beginning. But there's something extravagantly out of key, even for them, in holding their great "Save the Planet" revival at Cancun -- up to now famous for Spring Break and as a hangout for louche Hollywood types and cleavage researchers. It signals they've lost the will to pretend. And with Japan having walked away from the whole idea of Kyoto, it's hard to see how they'll work up the steam for another holiday next year.

- Rex Murphy

[parsley]

Chuckles, your comments leave me sympathetic to the breadth of your view which you have researched with vigor, but perhaps what could help to better convince is to add depth from a spiritual dimension as was done in Cancun:

"With United Nations climate negotiators facing an uphill battle to advance their goal of reducing emissions linked to global warming, it's no surprise that the woman steering the talks appealed to a Mayan goddess Monday.

Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, invoked the ancient jaguar goddess Ixchel in her opening statement to delegates gathered in Cancun, Mexico, noting that Ixchel was not only goddess of the moon, but also "the goddess of reason, creativity and weaving. May she inspire you -- because today, you are gathered in Cancun to weave together the elements of a solid response to climate change, using both reason and creativity as your tools."

She called for "a balanced outcome" which would marry financial and emissions commitments from industrialized countries aimed at combating climate change with "the understanding of fairness that will guide long-term mitigation efforts."

I'm good to go with the weaving, but I'm afraid out of my depth in exploring the 'reason' aspect of Ixchel's path to 'climatus financing interuptus'

I look forward to Ixchel's like-minded reasoning to explain what I cannot. Pars