This Just In...Global Gullible Warming Treaty Sputters

[Oddball]

SINGAPORE — President Barack Obama and other world leaders agreed today that next month's much-anticipated climate change summit will be merely a way station, not the once hoped-for end point, in the search for a worldwide global warming treaty.

The 192-nation climate conference beginning in three weeks in Copenhagen had originally been intended to produce a new global climate-change treaty. Hopes for that have dimmed lately. But comments by Obama and fellow leaders at a hastily arranged breakfast meeting here on the sidelines of an Asia-Pacific summit served to put the final nail in any remaining expectations for the December summit.

<snip>

A major bill dealing with energy and climate in the U.S., a domestic priority of Obama's, is bogged down in the U.S. Senate with scant hope it would be completed by next month, giving the American president little to show in Copenhagen.

Between that and the developments in Singapore, there may be little reason for Obama to travel there. White House aides had been saying privately that the outcome of talks during Obama's weeklong Asia trip, including a three-day visit to China that starts Sunday night, would help determine whether Obama might go to Copenhagen.

Obama retreats on climate change - The Denver Post

Ain't that a damn shame?

 

[alan1]

SINGAPORE — President Barack Obama and other world leaders agreed today that next month's much-anticipated climate change summit will be merely a way station, not the once hoped-for end point, in the search for a worldwide global warming treaty.

The 192-nation climate conference beginning in three weeks in Copenhagen had originally been intended to produce a new global climate-change treaty. Hopes for that have dimmed lately. But comments by Obama and fellow leaders at a hastily arranged breakfast meeting here on the sidelines of an Asia-Pacific summit served to put the final nail in any remaining expectations for the December summit.

<snip>

A major bill dealing with energy and climate in the U.S., a domestic priority of Obama's, is bogged down in the U.S. Senate with scant hope it would be completed by next month, giving the American president little to show in Copenhagen.

Between that and the developments in Singapore, there may be little reason for Obama to travel there. White House aides had been saying privately that the outcome of talks during Obama's weeklong Asia trip, including a three-day visit to China that starts Sunday night, would help determine whether Obama might go to Copenhagen.

Obama retreats on climate change - The Denver Post

Ain't that a damn shame?

Good.

 

[Toronado3800]

Are you saying you don't believe in the effects of greenhouse gasses, don't care, or think the money we would have to spend updating pollution equipment would cost too much and put the Chinese ahead?

 

[Oddball]

Yes.

 

[alan1]

Do you mean the same China that is the worlds number one polluter?

 

[Toronado3800]

Dude, are you agreeing with my last statement about falling behind China? Or the others. I believe the China theory to be the one with the most clout I can't really argue against.

 

[Oddball]

I'm saying that the whole anthropogenic climate change fuss is 100% hype and based upon flawed science.

The whole mess is little more than warmed over Luddism.

 

[Old Rocks]

And Dooodeee..... is warmed over ignorance.

Yes, the Chinese at the moment are the biggest polluters on Earth, period. However, they are also the biggest producers of solar and wind turbines.

Ol' Dooodeee...... has yet to put up a link to back up his assertations concerning the anthropogenic causes of global warming. He merely repeats talking points of dingbat drugged out talk jocks.

 

[Old Rocks]

SINGAPORE — President Barack Obama and other world leaders agreed today that next month's much-anticipated climate change summit will be merely a way station, not the once hoped-for end point, in the search for a worldwide global warming treaty.

The 192-nation climate conference beginning in three weeks in Copenhagen had originally been intended to produce a new global climate-change treaty. Hopes for that have dimmed lately. But comments by Obama and fellow leaders at a hastily arranged breakfast meeting here on the sidelines of an Asia-Pacific summit served to put the final nail in any remaining expectations for the December summit.

<snip>

A major bill dealing with energy and climate in the U.S., a domestic priority of Obama's, is bogged down in the U.S. Senate with scant hope it would be completed by next month, giving the American president little to show in Copenhagen.

Between that and the developments in Singapore, there may be little reason for Obama to travel there. White House aides had been saying privately that the outcome of talks during Obama's weeklong Asia trip, including a three-day visit to China that starts Sunday night, would help determine whether Obama might go to Copenhagen.

Obama retreats on climate change - The Denver Post

Ain't that a damn shame?

Good.

OK, fellow, show what good will come of this?

 

[Oddball]

Fanatical enviro-fascists like you will get the smackdown you so richly deserve.

If that's the best to comes of it, that's good enough for me.

 

[Toronado3800]

Its fair to say "pollution control costs money we can't afford so forcing it will help the Chinese."

Do you really believe there isn't a 50% chance greenhouse gases cause global warming?

25%, 10%?

 

[Oddball]

If you can't quantify the alleged threat, why should anyone else do it for you, so you can play your Pascal's wager game?

BTW...CO2 isn't a pollutant.

 

[Toronado3800]

A word game very interesting you are playing.

CO2 when emitted by an unnatural source is a pollutant. Heck, Nitrogen could be if I emitted enough of it the air you breathed became 99% Nitrogen and 1% Oxygen.

If you're opinion on the chances of greenhouse gasses cause global warming doesn't count then don't answer.

My semi-educated guess or answer is 99.9%, I'm sold on the theory.

 

[Oddball]

Game?...I'm playing no game here. If anyone is playing a game, it's those who play with Orwellian semantic ruses in order to control the information and range of "acceptable" thinking on the matter.

I used to believe the same pap you appear to, but decided to have and open mind and independent thought process. In my attempt to debunk the debunkers, I found that they're right and the enviro-lemmings are practicing a high tech version of Luddism, with a fair smattering of Druidism on the side.

The chances that CO2 causes warming of ambient air in a closed system are not in question...But an entire planetary ecosystem, with millions upon millions of organic and inorganic variables, is as far form a closed and controlled system as you can get.

You're swimming upstream of a deprogrammed cultist here, bub.

 

[Toronado3800]

I don't believe in things like "life is so complicated God must have created it". I also don't believe "the earth is so big we can't pollute it". There is a chance I'm wrong.

Now I'm going to drive to work tomorrow, but I still plant trees and generally support enviro-friendly causes.

If asking what chance you're willing to take is an unfair trick then sorry to make ya think about it.

Would that be like asking me "if there is xx% chance a prisoner at Gitmo is going to be released and try killing your nephew, would you release him" I'd say I feel the chance of an American being killed by terrorists over the last 8 years is roughly 1 in 480000 so I'll take the chance.

 

[Oddball]

So, we've boiled this all down to what you believe, rather than anything based upon conclusively proven facts....In which case you're no better than the religious nuts you disparage.

Like I said, Pascal's wager isn't scientific proof.

 

[Toronado3800]

I'm oddly entertained. Is this your way of saying you feel trapped by my question asking what chance you would take with global warming?

The one akin to "well, there is a 1 in xx,xxx,xxx,xxx chance this atom bomb reaction thing is going to just continue and destroy the whole world, we'll take the chance"

Or "there is a 1 in xx,xxx chance this x-ray is going to cause cancer. Well this pain in my leg is bad enough it needs fixed now or I won't live long enough for cancer to kill me so I'm risking it"

 

[Oddball]

Is this your way of projecting what you thought I must be feeling, based upon nothing more than your own feelings?

In order to make your alarmist scenario analogous to dropping a numerous nukes about the planet, the onus is upon you to prove that the consequence is in fact that dire....Which you cannot. Likewise, your X-ray example is equally specious.

You really need to get better at this.

 

[Old Rocks]

Fanatical enviro-fascists like you will get the smackdown you so richly deserve.

If that's the best to comes of it, that's good enough for me.

Silly ass. A dumbo like you cannot even smack me down. Do you think the rest of the idiot squad will?

 

[Old Rocks]

So, we've boiled this all down to what you believe, rather than anything based upon conclusively proven facts....In which case you're no better than the religious nuts you disparage.

Like I said, Pascal's wager isn't scientific proof.

The relationship of GHGs and heat in the atmosphere has been proven for over 150 years. Tyndal did that work.

We have evidence of the results of a rapid increase in GHGs several times in the geological record, that the results of those sudden increases.

Merely repeating a lie over and over does not change it from remaining a lie.

How ever much you dislike the evidence, it will not change that evidence one whit. You wish to dismiss reality. Those who do that usually end up destroyed by the reality they ignore.