The Tyee – In Copenhagen, the New Radicals

Ms Kaye is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
Mary Carlisle is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
Prem Gill is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
Nancy Flight is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
Justin Everett is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
John Westover is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
Nora Etches is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
Edward Henderson is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
Bharadwaj Chandramouli is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
Dean Chatterson is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
Marius Scurtescu is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
Robert Parkes is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
James Murton is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
Susan Doyle is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
Vincent Strgar is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
Helen Spiegelman is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
Subir Guin is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
Kimball Finigan is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
Joanne Manley is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
David Leach is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.

In Copenhagen, the New Radicals

A student in Copenhagen sees hope for the future of humanity -- but only if we're willing to fight for it.

By Jamie Biggar, 18 Dec 2009, TheTyee.ca

Politics as usual is not an option. Photo by Yvonne Su.

Copenhagen Contradictions

Copenhagen Meltdown

Angry frustration is boiling over in the city where NGOs and developing countries see no deal in sight.
In the heart of Copenhagen, a 'people's' climate forum
Against Copenhagen

Why we need to 'lose' at this week's climate summit if we are to win the fight against global warming.

[Editor's note: Last week, University of Victoria Environmental Law Professor Michael M'Gonigle wrote a two-part letter to a friend at the climate change conference in Copenhagen. That friend is student Jamie Biggar, who is attending conference as a member of the Canada Youth Delegation. This is Biggar's response.]

Hello M.M.,

Thank you for writing to me last week. Writing back to you from Copenhagen gives me a chance for reflection in the midst of this frenzied struggle. So, deep breath, deep breathhh, deep breeaatthhh...

When I started this letter I was sitting in a room filled with dozens of members of the Canadian Youth Delegation to Copenhagen. It was Sunday, Dec. 13 and we were prepping for the final week, surrounded by laptops and huge pieces of paper covered in day-by-day strategy and evaluation.

We welcomed our environment minister, Jim Prentice, by ensuring that the conference delegates know he does not represent the majority of Canadians, or even his own parliament. We mobilized social networks at home in a coordinated campaign to destabilize our minority government's commitment to causing catastrophic climate change by lowering the bar for the treaty well below what science and ethics demand of industrialized nations.

I'm finishing the letter on Thursday, Dec. 14. It's been an insane day. There was a ridiculously violent police crackdown on the protest I was in this morning (I'm not too proud to admit that I managed to avoid getting arrested by running like hell), and as I write this we have eight Canadian youth doing a sit-in for a fair, ambitious and binding (FAB) deal at Copenhagen. They've been in the summit facility for six hours now, causing a big ruckus and getting huge support. They're not leaving till we get a FAB deal -- so it's going to be lonely at the hostel tonight.

Most vulnerable are least guilty

Climate treaty summits have a funny way of radicalizing people whose gut instinct is to be part of the establishment (I can hear you laughing!). The father of climate science in the U.S., James Hansen of NASA, is now regularly joining in non-violent civil disobedience -- particularly against the coal industry. However, the list of establishment types who no longer believe that regular channels can solve this problem is getting longer.

Last Sunday, Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, questioned "the structure of nation states" and called for massive grassroots pressure from civil society to protect the people who are most vulnerable and most innocent. In the dark logic of climate change, they are almost always the same people.

I agree with much of what you wrote in your letter about the long-term consequences of endless economic growth and the role of the state. After 20 years it is clear that targets and actions are only partly informed by a "rational" discourse of experts. Ultimately, the fact that economic interests have structural advantages over science is obvious when you compare the jurisdictions that have acted to reduce global warming pollution and those that have not.

The E.U. countries that actually reduced their emissions in the Kyoto Protocol are rich and "carbon light." Because the carbon intensity of their economies is low, they can produce a relatively large amount of economic value per unit of global warming pollution. In contrast, rich countries like the U.S., Canada and Australia -- whose emissions increased dramatically in the same time period -- all have "carbon heavy" economies that produce a lot of global warming pollution for every unit of economic value.

We see the same pattern in Canadian provinces. The provinces that are doing the most to reduce global warming pollution are the provinces with the lowest carbon intensities (B.C., Quebec and Manitoba) while the provinces with the highest carbon intensities (Alberta, Saskatchewan) do the least.

Politics as usual is not an option

The pattern of the worst polluters doing the least is repeated at the Copenhagen Summit, where targets and action plans are well below where science and ethics tell us they should be to prevent a tipping point in our climate (25 to 40 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020 for industrialized countries).

Canada's minority government is promising a three per cent reduction below 1990 levels by 2020, and the likelihood that they will achieve this weak target is tiny given that they have no substantive plan and promise even more concessions for oil and gas producers. Our government's position is the most obvious to set the bar at the lowest levels to protect the worst polluters instead of the levels necessary to protect our future.

If we project these trends forward, politics as usual pushes us past every red-line there is. Add to this dynamic the promise that continual economic growth will eventually outstrip improvements in energy efficiency and clean energy technology, and it's clear we need to change our political economy. Which is just another way of saying that we need to transform our society.

Can we be practical and radical?

Lately, our conversations have always come back to the same thing: is my point of reference the dominant institutions of our society, or is it the societies and ecologies that sustain our world and make it thrive? Which do I think are more important and, by extension, which set of realities inform my actions?

Other people would look at this as the tension between being "practical" and being "radical." As you know, I struggle with framing up this question as a dichotomy where people pick one or the other; reformist or revolutionary, pragmatic realism or radical idealism.

I think a better way of looking at is to ask ourselves the following: How do we get what we can from the dominant institutions that exist today while we build the dominant institutions that we need tomorrow? Basically I think we need three deals.

Deal 1: Fight for the Peak

Most of the global movement focused on the Copenhagen Summit is asking for a fair, ambitious and binding deal. The double meaning of "ambitious" is key -- we need to reach a peak in global greenhouse gas production by about 2015, and then get levels back down to atmospheric concentrations of about 350 parts per million.

This goal can be achieved with a combination of investments in clean energy and infrastructure, carbon pricing and regulations (the three legs of the growth-friendly climate solutions stool).

The E.U. cap-and-trade system has helped several European signatories of the Kyoto Protocol reduce emissions while growing their economies. This kind of bridge deal would make legislated caps in the U.S., Canada and Australia far more likely. It is also the best chance we've got to seriously affect the emission growth trajectories of fast-growing nations like Brazil, China and India. Within our political economy there must be some kind of certainty between trading partners so that they won't be chumps if they cap their most polluting industries.

I know that you're reading this and thinking that a bridge deal is dangerous because it could give people a false sense of security. But the funny thing about these climate summits is the way that they can radicalize people with establishment tendencies. From global organizations like 350.org to local awareness groups, tens of millions of people have been directly engaged to support strong action at the Copenhagen Summit. I don't think these people trust for the global political class right now. They are ready to escalate.

That said, I agree with your position that economic growth will overwhelm anything that could come out of the Copenhagen Summit. Besides, the proposals that are on the table now are far too weak to prevent catastrophic climate change in the medium to long term. Knowing this, I think two things are essential right now: We must fight to win this battle so we have a chance to peak emissions within the decade, and we must understand that winning this battle means jamming our foot in front of the slamming door of history, buying a bit of time in which to transform our societies and prevent a long war in which time and structural power are not on our side.

Deal 2: Transform our Societies

Things have changed. As the Copenhagen Summit stumbles towards a deal that, if followed, would eventually commit the world to catastrophic climate change, we are seeing major cracks open in the credibility and legitimacy of world leaders. After all, peaking emissions is one thing, getting emissions down to zero and lower to get to 350ppm within a half century is another. There is a widely growing awareness that we need to change our political economy if we're going to address the root causes of climate change. At the huge Dec. 12 rally one of the most popular slogans was "System Change, Not Climate Change." Changing the system means changing our economy.

While we fight the political fights we can accelerate the creation of a social economy within civil society. Civil society has already started to transform itself by becoming part of the economy. We have entrepreneurial non-profits, community-based economic institutions and social enterprises, and a resurging cooperative and commons sector. The vast majority of these entities flip the ends-and-means relationship that exists within corporations. The end of a corporation is to profit and grow while the means is whatever services they happen to provide. The end of social economy entities is to provide a service, and the means is to grow to an optimal size for that task.

Of course I don't mean that scaling up the social economy is the "One True Answer." At the summit there is a lot of buzz about the many bottom-up strategies to transform our economy and infrastructure on the ground, strategies that we can follow while we mobilize politically at the level of the state. And on that note, I'm looking forward to hearing more about your eco-conversion idea.

Deal 3: Renegotiate the Movement

To create a movement that can decisively win political battles and transform our economy and society we need to renegotiate the implicit deals that bind and organize our movement. At the moment, the movement has relatively tiny institutions (most of the biggest environmental non-profits in Canada have less staff than the average McDonalds) and vast numbers of people who are loosely connected and asked to do little more than sign petitions and donate a bit of cash. We are going to need a lot more time, energy, smarts and money from more people and more institutions.

As you know, work to change the way we organize together began long before the Copenhagen Summit. The basic idea is that to get more from people they must get more -- more power to shape decisions, more training and more community. Now everyone knows that we need to do much better as a movement, and we have allies in a wide range of institutions that have much more capacity, from unions to churches. We have lots of models that we can experiment with and take to scale.

Okay M.M., now I'm looking up from my laptop and looking at the people who are with me here in Copenhagen. I'm thinking about the thousands of Canadians that have worked together over the last months and are now making phone calls and hitting the streets -- many of whom, maybe most, had never been politically engaged before in their lives. I know that for many of these people, certainly for myself, this is the first time that they have felt like they were part of something so much bigger than themselves.

There's something powerful brewing, M.M., something that almost shakes with its energy and potential. People with establishment tendencies are being radicalized.

Jamie Biggar is a student at the University of Victoria and a member of the Canada Youth Delegation in Copenhagen.

79

EastVanMan

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

Glad you are enjoying your

Glad you are enjoying your little adventure. Must be nice to have the money to take in such an event and then claim your there to represent the rest of us working poor in Canada. Your one step down from a politician but equally annoying.

seth

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

The anwer

The sad part of all this is there is a practical and quick way out of this crisis with nuclear power.

Warmists believe we are less than ten years away from a civilization ending peak oil and climate crisis, but also believe we are too dependent on oil imports, and dirty and deadly coal power production which kills and sickens hundred's of millions of people worldwide, while deniers will only agree that imports and pollution are problems.

A worldwide investment in 10000 new nuclear reactors would be paid for by and would end fossil fuel use, eliminate most air pollution saving millions of lives, end the global warming/ peak oil problem with a 100% elimination of GHG's within a ten year time frame, is a great investment making the economy more efficient, a wonderful job producing economy boost, requires only a small part of our industrial capacity, and pays for itself in less than three years.

Deniers and Warmists both could embrace it.

With mass production nuclear power costs drop to under $1B Gw much less expensive than coal or natural gas generation and 10% the cost of the cheapest renewable. Asian reactor builds now around $1.5 B Gw are trending to the $1B level.

Nuclear fuel supply and waste issues are resolved with already operating and well understood fast reactors.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-kirsch/climate-bill-ignores-our_b_221796.html

Canada could do its part in the global warming fight with a $150B nominal investment in nuclear power paid for by quickly weaning us off our $100B annual fossil fuel bill.

The US with an $2500B nominal investment in nuclear power paid for by quickly weaning itself off its $1000B annual fossil fuel bill could do the same. Unfortunately it is crippled by inefficient private power companies, a biased Nuclear Rejection Commission and corrupt and litigious political and legal systems, quadrupling nuclear costs and time frames.

By rimming the border with AECL reactors, Canada's very efficient public power companies could make $trillions selling the US nuke power at premium rates, making publicly owned Atomic Energy Canada the world leader in nuclear power, and generating a huge high paying job producing Canadian industry.

This an incredible opportunity for Canada and a lesson to the world in how to get it done.

The biggest problem is a nuclear conversion will put Big Oil out of business in less than ten years and they buy a lot of politicians with their campaign donations.

Van Isle

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

All the people who are for

All the people who are for the climate change deal have to remember that for us to properly stop polluting our world we have to change our political/economic system. Right now the reason we're not going to get any real change is that outfits like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley are trying to orchestrate the rules to suit them. How do they do that? Why thru our governments of course. With a hundred and umpteen countries in Copenhagen you can bet yer boots that whatever agreement is signed will be so watered down that it will be a joke and outfits, like the ones mentioned above, will be laughing all the way to the bank. It's people like the author who have to realize this and when she comes home she has to start educating her fellow students to quit being consummer nerds and get back to the basics; self sufficiency.

alive

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

Titanic

Unfortunately the author is correct!
It is necessary to change our way of thinking and living, that is of course a difficult feat, and it is not solved by the individual. We need government action meaning we need new governments in most countries!
Governments where lobbyist are banned and ordinary political goals are set aside!

Once again: it makes no sense to re-arrange the deckchairs on the Titanic, when you are hitting an iceberg.
But so far many people do not believe we are anywhere near an iceberg, and that is the problem!

Jerry Munro

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

Ass Wipe 1...

"All the people who are for the climate change deal have to remember that for us to properly stop polluting our world we have to change our political/economic system."

And that is indeed the crux of it, Van Isle, Though I understand and sympathize with much of the good intentions there, in Copenhagen, in the end, in my view, we are going to discover, for those who have not already, that it is going to take more than pieces of paper to really turn all this business around. Pieces of paper are, in fact, more often than not, just mechanisms for delay in any case. When people and their interests really intend to do something, they don't need agreement with others really to do so, they just design the programmes and get down to it... on their own if necessary. And the evidence is, that isn't where Canada is right now, for goddamn sure. We're just a little embarrassed at being considered "fossils" by world opinion.

Pieces of paper like these, which "establishment tendencies" are always too quick to put their faith in, like they were a Holy Book, too quickly become just ass wipe.

One does have to admire the radicalization going on amongst these "otherwise establishment tendency" types, no doubt. And I do. They have a role to play in what comes next.

Continued further on...

Jerry Munro

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

Ass Wipe 2...

Continued from above...

And what needs to come next is the radicalization of the working class masses, instead of just writing them off with scarcely hidden contempt too often, by these same "establishment tendencies". Which means the environmental movement is going to have to get a whole lot more real with the more material "economic" and "political" needs of the "unwashed", more than what comes natural to them. (The working class masses and its poor especially, are not quite as day to day comfortable right now as these "establishment tendencies" doing their summer/winter of being radicals and living in a kind of idealist poverty. (Of which there are echoes with the young upper middle and ruling class hippies of the '60s.)

No, the radicalization that needs to go on is going to have to run a lot deeper than these types. Though I suspect, and this is the really positive part for me, this manner of getting their way being displayed right now by these new "Establishment young" radicals in Copenhagen, is not going un-noticed by a much harder pressed lower orders of capitalist society.

But you link this more comfortable idealism of these otherwise more naturally "establishment tendencied" new radicals, with the more basic "food", "security" and "democracy" needs of a still silent but increasingly concerned and watchful working class, then you will have a movement that can and is seriously motivated to make the ground and society tremble beneath its feet.

Until then though, until those always underestimated, and frequently held in contempt "working class" or "common woman/man" numbers start to move and step on the scales of the times, all you've got in Copenhagen and the larger environmental movement is, a pretty good show.

It's going to take more than signed pieces of paper and good intentions, or even green economy investment, to really change the order and direction of things.

freebear

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

We atcually have to hit the iceberg!

Before 'we' will do anything and re-arrange our lives to live within the Earth's means!

Unfortunately...

Until then, the cracks in the current system will get larger and the shocks will increase in intensity (war, migration,ecological collapse)!

I hope I am around to see how it plays out!

soleprobe

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

A perfect image...

...for the gw scam: a frozen gw activist.

mopled

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

They may have achieved "global governance" afterall

"Amid all the mainstream media reports of the talks in Copenhagen “limping” to a close and having failed, Lord Christopher Monckton, reporting from the summit, has stated that the only goal of the conference was to implement the framework and the funding for a world government – which he asserts has been achieved.

“That is the one thing that they are definitely going to succeed in doing here and they will announce that as a victory in itself, and they will be right because that is the one and only single aim of this entire global warming conference, to establish the mechanism, the structure, and above all the funding for a world government.” the British politician, business consultant, policy adviser exclusively told the Alex Jones show yesterday.

“They are going to take from the western countries the very large financial resources required to do that.” Monckton said, adding “They will disguise it by saying they are setting up a $100 billion fund for adaptation to climate change in third world countries, but actually, this money will almost all be gobbled up by the international bureaucracy.”

“The first thing they will do, and the one thing I think they were always going to succeed in doing at this conference is to agree to establish what will be delicately called ‘the institutional framework’. Now that is a code word for world government.”

Lord Monckton explained that although the word “government” has been dropped from the treaty, all the interlocking bureaucratic features of a world government are still present in the final draft of the treaty, which also legislates for a global tax on financial transactions that will be paid directly to the World Bank."
http://www.prisonplanet.com/exclusive-british-peer-copenhagen-summit-has-established-a-world-government.html

Goldman Sachs wins again!
http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2009/08/goldman_sachs_new_carbon_marke.shtml

realisticman

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

Is this how the revolution

Is this how the revolution is meant to start coyoteman?

"(I'm not too proud to admit that I managed to avoid getting arrested by running like hell), "

Van Isle

"All the people who are for the climate change deal have to remember that for us to properly stop polluting our world we have to change our political/economic system."

I thought this whole shebang was about climate and carbon, not pollution.

I just heard that carbon trading proposals will allow companies in the developed world to gain cash credits if they move their industries to the developing world. So, close up shop, move offshore to the developing world and get cash. Mmmm, how about that for our workers. Better check that one with Jack.

No worries, in no time at all these cute looking fashionable protesters will be back at their liberal arts colleges Tweeting each other about the latest Apps they're loading onto their Christmas gadgets and sharing photos on Facebook of all the cute guys and gals they met in Copengagen and planning their next rendezvous in Costa Rica, Thailand or Bali. Cool.

Skywalker

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

At least they are doing something...

...they think is constructive rather than sitting on their duff making cynical comments and pretending to be realistic. The current economic conditions indeed the whole world situation is a product of your kind of thinking prevailing and we know just how well that has turned out for most folks today. maybe out of some naive action might come the notion of participatory democracy for the next generation which it seems frightens you. Hell they can't do any worse now can they?

realisticman

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

Skywalker

That's just it, I'm not frightened. Did you see my post 'Copenhagen Holiday' on the Copenhagen Meltdown thread?

That, my friend, is what will happen. What I should have added is that the government employed participants will be also going home with many of them wondering if a bit of paid stress leave would be in order, after all of the traveling, Carlsberg and schnapps.

Participatory democracy is what we now have - as has an increasing number of other countries. Various forms of democracy are employed around the world and, since it is the best form of governance found thus far, nothing much will change, except for some tweaking here and there.

Frank

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

r/man

Do you live in Canada? Because representative democracy is not what most people think of when they think of participatory democracy.

Janie Jones

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

Be scared.

Tomorrow belongs to them.

Skywalker

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

Thanks Frank.

Odd you have to explain the difference to R/man.

Wilfride Laurier

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

Climate Change

This is a real issue that is being blown out of proportion by all sides. There will not be a tidal wave in ten years, nor will there be economic disaster if we do something about it. Storms have always happened. Climates fluctuate.

I recall the arguments of the auto industry when the first real emission controls were imposed, how the industry was doomed, job losses, etc. They adapted.

However, there is no way we should be wasting a non-renewal resource like we do and no way we should be spewing as much of anything into the environment like we do with carbon.]

Change is possible. We changed from the horse to the internal combustion engine and we can change to a cleaner environment. Compared to other developed countries, we are horrible wasters of energy.

Luke

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

Copenhagen...

The City of Copenhagen is very progressive and social democratic. It's mayor, Ritt Bjerregaard, is also a life-long social democrat.

Council heads for the varous city departments include progressive members of the social democratic party, the left party, the radical left party, the socialist people's party, and the red-green alliance.

Very progressive stuff. And they give directions to the progressive Copenhagen city police.

Quote:

There was a ridiculously violent police crackdown on the protest I was in this morning (I'm not too proud to admit that I managed to avoid getting arrested by running like hell)

It's obvious that not even the progressive Copenhagen police will put up with out-of-control yahoos and out-of-town interlopers attempting to disturb the peace. I wouldn't put up with it either.

"Running like hell" also is a telltale sign that a revolution is just around the corner, eh Comrade Coyoteman? :D

Quote:

working class masses ... the radicalization

Yeah, I suggest that you walk into your local pub and yell out "If anyone is 'working class' in this joint, please put up your hand!".

And with no show of hands you will prolly be the lone person standing while you sing the Internationale, off-key that is. ;)

silvervalley

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

Global governance connection

Copenhagen: U.N. chief weighs in on climate talk expectations
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-climate-ban16-2009dec16,0,1781040.story
'We will establish a global governance structure to monitor and manage the implementation of this. Experts from both worlds should participate.'

***********************

More on global governance from the horses' mouths (connections to EU & WTO relates to TILMA, NAFTA & NAU--trade treaties & other regulatory schemes), in case anyone cares to see these videos:

EU president Herman Van Rompuy on Global Governance Copenhagen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc0PP6i05xk

WTO Head Says Global Free Trade Deal Possible
http://www.youtube.com/watch?=oB0_gZNOAaM&feature=related

Pascal Lamy: "Global Governance: Lessons from Europe" [46 mins]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBI-9Fxto3I&feature=related

World Federalist Association - Walter Cronkite, NWO, WTF
[Walter tells us the way it is, world government/governance-wise.
Mentions need to give up a measure of national sovereignty.]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inu9vKXsrFA

mopled

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

WL,That is just it, we can't do anything

about climate because it is out of our capacity to alter the Earth's relationship to the Sun except by "aerial obscuration."

"VANCOUVER, Canada - As continuing chemtrail activity culminated in massive aerial spraying over Vancouver Island and Washington state yesterday- and broadening plumes once again fanned out to haze clear blue skies - Air Traffic Controllers at major airports across the United States expressed concern over the emissions constantly showing up on their radar screens."
http://www.rense.com/general20/cc.htm
Not exactly the "solution" to a non existent problem I'd prefer.

A great deal can be done to warp economies without doing anything for the environment. Jobs go to where there is no environmental regulation at all.

The plan is to establish a global tax payable to the World Bank. The World Bank has a very dodgy image in the Third World, as does the IMF. Both will be in charge, bypassing the UN.

Energy waste is an entirely separate issue from taxing production of "The Gas Of Life". Just think of how much energy is wasted by planes spreading poisonous chemtrails.

Luke, I think the police crackdown in Copenhagen was indiscriminate. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/17/lord-monckton-barred-from-copenhagen-conference-pushed-to-the-ground-by-security/

willy

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

climategate

--16,500 delegates and reporters, 152 world leaders, and approximately 150,000 protestors, celebrities and other climate clingers have dieseled in on jets from all over the world to ride in limousines, scarf scallops and caviar, and preach to the rest of us working stiffs about wasting energy and eating too much meat.

Frank

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

Newsflash

Luke, like his leader Chretien, thinks protesters should be attacked by riot police. Quelle surprise.

Why not take your own advice and walk into your local pub and yell out "If anyone loves Dianne Watts and capitalism in this joint, please put up your hand!".

You'll be singing "Money (That's What I Want)" by yourself.

Jerry Munro

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

When your enemy is advancing with superior force....

"I hope I am around to see how it plays out!" wrote freebear.

Me too freebear, brothers/sisters/comrades. :-)

And as for Uberfuhrer Luke, if he is the student of Deutschland history he claims to be, even he should know, there is a time to advance and a time to retreat... even back into one's bunker.

Two steps forward, one step back, has long been a revolutionary's tactical gambit. I have never been inclined to suicide. That is more for fanatics. The object is to defeat The System and you Seig Heil types that serve it-, and to survive to fight another day when it is appropriate. :-). We did it once, and will so again, knowing when to retreat.... and when to advance.

The beer hall is NOT my theatre of battle. That is yours and the other Brownshirt's.

You pick your ground. I'll pick mine, and the appropriate time. :-)

Frank

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

willy

Don't worry, your side was well represented by the likes of Campbell and Berman.

carfreed

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

co-operativism

The conference has achieved quite a great deal for the people,ie. the caring, concerned people.
Comraderie is good.
The educational value was remarkable.
We at home were able to meet so many wonderful people.
The photographic timelapse show on the glaciers was a knockout!!!
It was an all age, all colour event.
It was so heartening and invigorating for that many like minded people to be together.
There was humour and heartbreak and we saw the problems we face.
Northerners are realizing what a rise in temperature will mean to Southerners, altho' many of the belligerents in Canada and the US will not have tuned into that aspect, we have the task of educating, sharing and informing.
It will be grassroots all the way.
I do think that many Canadians heard about the fossil award.
Harper's ratings may go down after Copenhagen. Maybe he thought Canadians would go for the strong silent type.
We all know what our New Year resolutions will be!
I was out and about to a few churches for the bell ringing. I saw people out who would never go to a rally or protest but were out for this.
It was wonderful.
More bell ringing in the New Year.
The airlines and airport must have been very busy.
But its not like you troopers do this often, so don't feel too guilty.
I keep pointing out that if half of the drivers in the USA quit driving for just one year and parked their automobile, then pooled the savings, it would amount to more than $1.4 Trillion dollars.Imagine what could be done with that!
So, I say move to a new, well, actually its an old way, of co-operation.Co-operativism.
Barn raisings, mutual fund raisings.
Bring on the Green Army with weapons of ingenuity, humour,creativity, resourcefulness, skillful communication and comraderie.

SicPreFix

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

mopled ...

Um, you actually believe in that chemtrail idiocy?

Wow.

Yesterday it was Jesse "the Body" Ventura as your authority on the science and politics of climate change. Today it's some chemtrail looney.

What do we get tomorrow mopled? Crystals, feng-shui, and the reptilian overlords?

mopled

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

I never said Ventura was an authority, just that he covered the

climate fraud and paid attention to the man-behind-the-curtain, Maurice Strong. You might want to read up on him yourself
http://sovereignty.net/p/sd/strong.html

And all you have to do is look at the sky to confirm chemtrails. Look at the pictures.
http://www.synchronium.com/FilmMaking/chemtrails.htm

But I wouldn't imagine a gatekeeper could see the differences between them and contrails, because cognitive dissonance would probably kick in. Also, since you manage to blame 12-15 extra part per million of CO2 for changing climate, I don't think you would be much use identifying chemtrails....real man-made climate control.

"(b) THE LOW FLYING SPRAY PROGRAM These contrails are sprayed by low flying C-130 Turboprop aircraft. I witnessed this myself in Pagosa Springs, Colorado, last summer. I was stunned to see a C-130 gliding low over this little resort town in the mountains, engines throttled back, dead quiet, spray coming out of the wings of the aircraft as it pulled away. I was standing in the middle of the intersection with my mouth hanging open! I went into the stores in that town, and everybody was coughing like crazy. We also took samples from aluminum-sided buildings in Michigan and Pennsylvania that were not contaminated by background bacteria. We found Pseudomonas fluorescens, streptomyces and a bacillus. In a similar sample taken a year previously on the other side of the United States, we found the same things, as well as other very pathogenic moulds. Rainwater samples taken after heavy spraying over Espanola, Ontario, were found to contain aluminum seven times higher than permissible safe levels. Chemtrail fallout also included carbon black - this is used by the United States Air Force for weather modification. It absorbs sunlight and heats the atmosphere. Carbon black can be hit with HAARP or similar ionispheric heaters and artificially heated to change the weather. They also found chaff (a fine cobwebby filament used to jam radars) in the fallout, and this very fine filament stays aloft for up to a day. So if you put it in your spray mix, you can track the distribution of your spray on radar for a full day. We have very clean lab samples of the material being sprayed and it all contains very pathogenic moulds and fungi. I discovered an article in the Portland Free Press, written by John Titus, in March 1997, describing how dozens of these spray-equipped aircraft, C-130s, were taken away from the U.S. Forest Service, from forest fire-fighting duties, and taken over by the CIA for "missions undisclosed."
http://www.consumerhealth.org/articles/display.cfm?ID=20000830164825

Fiat lux

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

Accept the definition of

Accept the definition of physical efficiency also for economic efficiency and start the objective, real scientific examination of the crap that's being taught in our universities as "economics"

The vast majority of the energy inputs used in today's overcapitalized industries and forced urbanization, is unnecessary and for the sole purpose of increasing profits for a few, while destroying the Earth and humanity.

We need more nuclear power stations like holes in the head. The don't know what to do with the waste from the already existing few even now.

Ed Deak.

Jerry Munro

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

Fait Lux On Nuclear Power Delusions...

Fait Lux wrote, "The vast majority of the energy inputs used in today's overcapitalized industries and forced urbanization, is unnecessary and for the sole purpose of increasing profits for a few, while destroying the Earth and humanity.

We need more nuclear power stations like holes in the head. The don't know what to do with the waste from the already existing few even now."

Which puts it about as well and succinctly as needs to be said.

I appreciate that you took this one on, Fait. Best of the Season to yourself and the Mrs.

mopled

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

Unless you get them to repudiate the lunacy

of man-made global warming aka climate change, that is exactly what you will get....more nukes!

Copenhagen didn't exactly fail, because they will keep the meetings going until they get what they want.

"Copenhagen delegates have already promised to convene another series of meetings next year to strengthen what is spelled out in the final agreement. Globalists are persistent and they will continue hammering away until they get what they want, not because the environment is on the verge of collapse, but because their agenda for world government is stalling as more people find out the true agenda behind the global warming scam.

This is why we need to be more vigilant than ever and keep the elite on the back foot. While it’s true that the globalists have failed to achieve the entirety of what they set out for, they are still moving forward with their agenda by taking baby steps rather than giant leaps.

We have slowed the juggernaut of global government, but it continues to grind forward, which is why we need to continue to awaken more people so that we can have greater strength in pushing back and resisting the tyranny that the globalists want to enforce by taxing and regulating the very life-giving gas that we all breathe."
http://www.prisonplanet.com/copenhagen-accord-establishes-global-government-framework.html

There is a link to the agreement on the page.

SicPreFix

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

mopled ...

You're a hoot!

SicPreFix

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

A wee song ...

dedicated to mopled, ME2, soleprobe, realisticman, Janie Jones, and the rest of the Happy House Gang.

And it's one, two, three,
What are we fighting for?
Don't ask me I don't give a damn
Next stop Conspiracyland
And it's five, six, seven,
Open up the Climategate
Well there ain't no time to research why,
Whoopee! we're all gonna die.

With apple oagies to CJM (and watch our for the brown acid, man!)

This moment of minor levity has been brought to you by the Chupacabra, Chemtrails-R-Us, and the New World Order.

realisticman

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

mopled

Is right. The warmingistas decry globalization but they are calling for global government. Hello! They imagine that this global government will be run by some enlightened socialists that will halt the progress of capitalism. It ain't gonna happen. Not even Jack Layton is going to go for some religion that calls for the elimination of thousands jobs in Canada because we must now slow everything down.

Canadians should be worshiping the sun for more heat so we use less energy to survive in the cold north. That way we can help save the planet.

mopled

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

I try to be a balance to the propaganda that passes for

journalism and I have been a "hoot" for a very long time.

How many US government sponsored hoaxes are you willing to put up with. There were no weapons of mass destruction and there isn't any human caused climate change either. Only 1/3 of Canadians took the swine flu shot and 73% of them think we should wait until the questions raised by Climategate are cleared up (a fraud within a fraud) or the financial questions are answered.

The supporters of the biggest attempted scam in the history of the world, are the ones in the minority now.

Terence Corcoran describes what was going on at CRU
as, the "business of decision-based evidence"

"The emails also imply that, in part because the past is so unknown, any attempt at long-range forecasts is, at best, uncertain.
Also clear is that the official science on climate change as we know it today, looking backward and forward, has been developed and controlled by the relatively small collection of scientists who wrote most of the emails. Working directly or indirectly for the IPCC, the scientists seem to have become captive of that organization’s objectives, which was to find “the hand of man” in climate records to justify plans to change the climate in future. The scientists, in other words, became engaged in the all-too-familiar business of decision-based evidence making.
Whatever the source of the emails, they are a dynamic record of how scientists sought to plot the past and predict the future of climate. In 1996, the first year of the emails, there is clear internal skepticism among these official IPCC-linked scientists over what would turn out to be one of the greatest sources of conflict, the role of paleoclimatology — the science of reconstructing world climate history over tens of thousands of years. More specifically, doubts existed especially over dendrochronology, the use of tree rings as a way to measure and document climate history. “I support the continued collection of such data, but I am disturbed by how some people in the paleo community try to oversell their products,” Tom Wigley, previous director of CRU and now at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), in Boulder, Colo., wrote in August of 1996."
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/18/terence-corcoran-a-2-000-page-epic-of-science-and-skepticism-part-1.aspx

You don't have to take his word on it. You can read them yourselves.

SicPreFix

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

On mopled balancing propaganda, etc.

Okay, let's look at this.

Point 1. Terence Corcoran is a journalist whose focus is business and free-market economics, currently acting as an editor of the Financial Post.

So, where in his bona fides do you find PhD of Climatolgy (or any other science), or any other science accolade, or specialization that could make him an expert on climate change?

Like most of the links you post to, it's just yet another non-expert spewing his subjective opinion based upon a myopic, unrelated specialization. No science; no credibility.

Point 2. Corcoran says: "The emails also imply that, in part because the past is so unknown, any attempt at long-range forecasts is, at best, uncertain." (my emphasis)

Fine. Key word: Imply. Please check the dictionary definition of the word imply. Secondly, there is a very wide range of possibility between his "uncertain" and your absolutist certainty of some paranoid global conspiracy theory.

Point 3. Corcoran says: "Also clear is that the official science on climate change as we know it today, looking backward and forward, has been developed and controlled by the relatively small collection of scientists who wrote most of the emails."

Clear to who? Not me. It's clear only to someone who wants it to be that way. There have been over the last 50 years thousands of scientists working on, defining, outlining, researching climatolgy, and climate change. Corcoran's claim is without substance and is based on hearsay and groundless personal bias.

Point 4. Corcoran says: "Working directly or indirectly for the IPCC, the scientists seem to have become captive of that organization’s objectives, which was to find 'the hand of man' in climate records to justify plans to change the climate in future." (my emphasis)

Yes, perhaps. But the critical word here is "seem". They seem to have done so especially when someone, such as yourself (and Corcoran) have decided beforehand that that is how you want to interpret the "seem": it is a fait accompli.

Point 5. Corcoran says: "Whatever the source of the emails, they are a dynamic record of how scientists sought to plot the past and predict the future of climate."

Of course that's what they are doing. That's part of what science is. Plotting the past and attempting to predict the future is not under any circumstances the same thing as revising history and inventing the future from whole cloth just to suit a suspect agenda. To assume otherwise only expresses a weak grasp on English and a limited vocabulary. Also, he is intentionally misleading you.

I cannot go into an extensive explanation of word meaning, but it really would benefit you to grab a dictionary, and to study some of the language of science so you actually understand what people say and mean.

Fiat lux

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

Slowing things down would

Slowing things down would not kill, but make more work for more well paid, skilled people.

The present destruction is caused by the replacement of half hp. of human labour by 20 or 50 or 100m hp of other forms of energy, for the sole purpose to divert the benefits of resource conversion into the pockets of the banks and the corporate mafia with multibillion profits and multimillion salaries stolen from the public's pockets.

I've been an independent, private enterpriser, small manufacturer for 35 years and have a pretty good idea how things can be and should be made by human for humans in localized facilities.

Human labour does not cost anything for an economy, it is the unreal world of overcapitalized and unnecessary hi tech that kills jobs and the ecology with garbage and pollution.

Ed Deak.

mopled

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

Sic spin and Ed the economist

That will not wash. When they plan to tax us and send the proceeds to the World Bank...it IS an economic issue and Al Gore isn't a scientist either.Unlike Corcoran, he, Strong and Obama will all profit from carbon trading.
Follow the money.

"The Climate Research Unit (CRU) in the UK was set up in 1971 with funding from Shell and BP as is described in the book: “The history of the University of East Anglia, Norwich; Page 285)” By Michael Sanderson. The CRU was still being funded in 2008 by Shell, BP, the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate and UK Nirex LTD (the nuclear waste people in the UK)

This is important to know, for two reasons.
Firstly, the key institution providing support for Global Warming theories and the basis for the IPCC findings receives funding from “Big Oil” and the nuclear power industry.

Secondly, the research from the institution which is perceived to be independent publicly funded research, is actually beholden to soft money, CRU is in fact a business.

The funders of the CRU are on the bottom of this page from their website:
http://web.archive.org/web/20080627194858/http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020304/climategate-peak-oil-the-cru-and-the-oman-connection/

Ed...human labour does cost something. Wear and tear on the individual and food to keep going.

Don't tell me you are ready to give up your chainsaw or your tractor.Oil, gas and coal are natures gift. CO2 is plant food and the more we produce, the better plants grow and the more drought tolerant they are.

Garbage and real pollution have solutions. CO2 doesn't need one because it never was a problem... higher levels produce benefits.

KWD

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

no problem, no solution

“CO2 doesn't need one because it never was a problem... higher levels produce benefits”

Yes, the logic behind that one is too good to pass up.

The same applies to H2O, C2H5OH (preferably Ballantine’s very old), THC, LSD, vitamin D and ASA.

But why the ASA you say? Consuming higher levels of Ballantine’s, while taking in all that extra vitamin D has diverted my attention from the H2O flood that just washed the top soil from under my Pot plants.

The LSD was required to carry me to the safety of higher levels, but once there I still had this nagging pain that results from being fed bullshit.

SicPreFix

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

mopled (yet again) ...

you did not address my points. You just posted an empty dismissal and yet more meaningless quote(s).

Speaking of which, if you have any interest at all in anyone deciphering your appeals to authority, could you at least be careful and accurate in using the quotes correctly so we can actually tell when it is your words as oppoosed to someone else's words. Illiteracy or intellectual laziness will make you no friends amongst the adults

Listen mopled, clearly you're one of the most hidebound (not to mention uninformed) ideologues commenting on the Tyee, and it is abundantly clear that absolutely nothing wil change your mind, or even enable you to, however slightly, question your beliefs because you do not base your belief system on science, or proofs, or anything tangible or reality based. Your entire belief system is based on a deep lack of critical thinking and a belief in the most ludicrous of conspiracy theories, not to mention the inexpert opinion, hearsay, and say-so of lunatics, charlatans, liars, conspiracy theorists, non-expert journalists, and who knows what else.

So anyway, I've wasted enough time prattling to your inanities. You win. I give up. Have a happy if ignorant and uninformed life.

Fiat lux

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

Mopled.....I happen to be

Mopled.....I happen to be tool crazy and am buying tools even now, in my 80s.

We don't have to give up labour enhancing tools to make our lives better and easier, but can not afford the huge energy inputs demanded by monetary competition to feed ever increasing stockmarket profits.

Competition and speed increase real, physical costs, collaboration and cooperation lower them.

We had a relatively good system going in the 50s and 60s, with the economy spread between large and small businesses, relatively low energy demands, corporations making profits, while paying decent wages to employees. No homelessness to speak of and no foodbanks, executives receiving high, but acceptable salaries.

What we have now is a fascist system of total exploitation with the power of imaginary capital created from the air, taking over the resources, and enslaving humanity.

Businesses are not the "economy" as they claim, but only a certain part of it, yet permitted by politicians to become dictators, totally out of control, controlling the whole world.

The forest industry is a good example: 50 ,or even 30 years ago there were hundreds of sawmills across BC, all giving good living to their owners and employees. Now we have about 6 controlling the markets, destroying the forests with their clearcuts. The staff of the large mills have been cut to 1/2 and 1/3, while the energy inputs increased by hundred fold. Capitalization that used to be one wage year per worker, has now reached 60-70 wage years, draining the economy and ruining the ecology.

A small sawmill can give good living to a couple of families with small investment, using 50 loads of logs per year. The large automated mills need up to 400 loads per worker.

Where do the benefits go ?

And this is the crap that's being taught in our universities as "economics", because of the fraudulent definitions of economic efficiency and the GDP.

Ed Deak.

mopled

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

I have no argument with small is beautiful, Ed.

I am equally disturbed by the alterations I've seen in my lifetime to self-sufficiency in communities.

I do have problems with ideologues who pretend they know about CO2 and dismiss its effects on plant growth, while pretending it changes climate.

If anybody is interested, here is plenty of info to pour over on the benefits of higher levels of CO2.

http://www.co2science.org/subject/c/subject_c.php

Sic, you didn't make any points...you did a great deal of spinning.Then you attacked me for posting things that you consider wrong, with nothing to back it up, and called me names. That is all Warmists ever do....or connect scientists to funding by Exxon, no matter how tenuously.

You can't pull that anymore, not with CRU trying to figure out how to tap into that stream of oil funding, having already taken funding from Shell and BP, let alone nuclear interests.

That is what you are really bitching about and what you are trying to divert attention away from.

Where is the proof that CO2 changes climate?

That is up to Warmists to prove, and not only did they not do it, they tried to prevent publication by those who disagreed with them.

Anything else, my inattention to punctuation, (I apologize)for instance, is beside the point.

Prove it!

Ah, but you went away so you couldn't be called on your bs....you and nobody else either can prove it, because it is untrue.

Tony Blair admitted it.

"Copenhagen climate summit: Tony Blair calls on world leaders to ‘get moving’
The world must take action on climate change at Copenhagen even if the science is not correct, Tony Blair, the former Prime Minister has suggested."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6803921/Copenhagen-climate-summit-Tony-Blair-calls-on-world-leaders-to-get-moving.html

What for? To enrich Gore, Strong, Goldman Sachs and the World Bank?

KWD

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

Blair, when “driven by the glamour” will admit to anything

“Blair engaged in alarming subterfuge with Bush, British official claims”

http://www.amsterdamnews.net/story/579267

… now there’s a leader we can count on to give informed opinion on the matter of climate change.

Booker

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

Enough

The denialist trolls have been fed enough.

If they think those leaders who just met in Copenhagen would be capable of creating a "world government" then the fluoridated water must be going to their heads.

What the meetings pointed out is that the nation-state reigns supreme still, and international co-operation, even in the face of extreme crisis, is very difficult to achieve. Sadly, the Canadian government added absolutely nothing to the enterprise and wasn't even a part of the meetings. When George W. Bush was president, other leaders thought he was a joke, but they still had to pay attention to him because of the importance of the United States. World leaders think that Harper is a joke, but they do not have to pay attention to Canada. We are now officially irrelevant, thanks to the Conservatives.

Luke

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

Speaking of Climate Change - How About Cap & Trade?...

Which is now amongst the biggest scams that I've ever seen:

Quote:

The top cops in Europe say carbon-trading has fallen prey to an organized crime scheme that has robbed the continent of $7.4 billion -- a massive fraud

Quote:

In a statement released last week, the Europol police agency said Europe's cap-and-trade system has been the victim of organized crime during the past 18 months, resulting in losses of roughly $7.4 billion.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/14/fraud-europes-cap-trade-red-flag-critics-say/

So much for reducing greenhouse gas emissions through fraudulent cap & trade. Bernie Madoff would be proud.

Jerry Munro

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

The Nation and World Goverment,..

"World leaders think that Harper is a joke, but they do not have to pay attention to Canada. We are now officially irrelevant, thanks to the Conservatives." Booker wrote.

Your comment and KWDs above you, I think, are the most succinct and to the point, this thread.

Mrs Coyote is tapping her foot. I gotta go right now. Speaking of a bootlick. :-)

Capitalism, especially in the "over-developed" West, on one level, would no doubt dearly love a "World Government", assuming they dominated it, of course. And they are now militarily about attempting that, led by the US Empire, in the Middle East and increasingly, in Africa.

But as with all previous attempts in the First and Second Wars as well, they are also locked in a competition with themselves, as are still even the huge national based corporationsl. Who for all their pretensions and ambitions are still very much rooted in national economies, regardless of who or which capitalist interest sets formally own them... Opal being one recent example.

Yes, if everybody laid down and played dead, especially Western capitalism, but increasingly Russian and Chinese capitalism, would, if they could, dominate the globe through a kind of World Government. But it ain't there yet, the competition between them still poses greater risks of war between them, and the masses of the globe are of far greater likelihood to rise before it ever has a chance to happen in fact.

Over-developed capitalism, still looking for places to grow and feed on cheap labour, has increasingly no future, up against still nascent nationalism everywhere. And when capitalism can't endlessly grow, it is in its End Time. Which I predict is NOW.

Within this above context, Canada is just another colonial bootlick irrelevant. As it has been since the time of its bootlicking the British Empire.

Canada needs a serious waking up by its citizenry. Only they are still somnambulating as well.

mopled

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

I heard CKNW news say Canada was excluded

from the important meetings because it isn't a big enough polluter.

"Canadian negotiators, however, weren't invited to a meeting that included the U.S., China, Brazil, India and South Africa for the drafting of the final document. But Prentice said Canada didn't need a seat at the table for the 11th-hour bargaining session.

"Those were the countries that had to be in that room because the final issue that needed to be resolved was transparency in terms of the obligations by the developing countries," he said.

"Canada was not there because we are only responsible for two per cent of the world's emissions."

OK, guys...Pop Quiz!

Quick, quick, tell me how many parts per million is that...or is it a part of a part per million?

Here's the simple puzzle:

If CO2 is present at 390 Parts per million (actually around 388)

and humans are responsible for 3-5% of that (use 5%, I'll be generous)

And Canada is responsible for 2% of that 5%

How many parts per million is Canada responsible for.

PS, I loath Harper, but he was right about going after particulate matter and not CO2.

From NASA:
New Study Turns Up the Heat on Soot's Role in Himalayan Warming
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091214173646.htm

Jerry Munro

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

God and Tony Blair.

Goodness knows that CKNW is the word of God. A better source even than Tony Blair.

God save the Queen.

KWD

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

Thanks Coyote

“Mrs Coyote is tapping her foot. I gotta go right now. Speaking of a bootlick. :-)”

Hmmmm. Let me see … last Coyote post 43 minutes ago; previous post 1 hour ago … that’s approx 15 minutes.

I see you’re lasting much longer these days :-))

SharingIsGood

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

stats

List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions per capita as per the wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

Considering Canada's great distances, low population, dependence on high energy extracting natural resources, and cold climate, we aren't doing as badly as I thought. It is amazing to me that the more temperate USA has a higher carbon footprint.

The afore-mentioned being true, I also believe we can do much better at reducing our footprint through enacting a number of measures and having our governments/public power companies offering incentives. We should be able to amortize the cost over a number of years to extra-insulate/seal our homes, install heat pumps and erect solar hot water heaters on as many dwellings, government buildings and commercial buildings as is practical.

I believe that mopled may have confused the annual rate of increase in CO2 with total increase of CO2. The current %age of CO2 is 38% higher than the average amount of CO2 as recorded over the last 2.1 million years. Over the last few decades, total CO2 has increased very rapidly well over 20%.

Links discussing human caused increases/%ages of CO2:

http://www.universetoday.com/2009/06/18/more-atmospheric-co2-today-than-in-the-past-2-1-millions-years/
http://www.universetoday.com/tag/climate-change/
http://rainforests.mongabay.com/09-carbon_emissions.htm
http://rainforests.mongabay.com/carbon-emissions/canada.html

mopled

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

Nice try coyoteman

No figure for Canada's CO2 production in ppm?

The CKNW story was sourced from Canadian Press.
Ottawa and environmentalist disagree on final Copenhagen agreement

Jessica Murphy, THE CANADIAN PRESS
http://www.cknw.com/News/National/Article.aspx?id=170123

Better now?

Tony Blair was not the first to say that even if the science is wrong the climate scam must go ahead, just the latest.

Tim Worth who heads the UN Foundation may have been the first, or Christine Stewart, Chretien's Environment Minister.

The new Project Censored list is out. Look at what is #15

http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/15-world-banks-carbon-trade-fiasco/

Alive, did you do the math?

What is Canada's contribution to atmospheric CO2 expressed on PARTS PER MILLION?

Anybody?

North of Hope

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

Great Article

Here is a great article from Ralph Surette in the Halifax Chronicle Herald. I find him quite illuminating.

Climate zombies and the Copenhagen blues

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Opinion/1157372.html

SharingIsGood

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

canada stats

Canada has 0.5% of the world's population.

Canada produces over 2% of the humans' share of the world's atmospheric CO2.

Canada produces more than 4 times the world percapita average of CO2.

Canada ranks 10th in world production of CO2.

Canada produces 2-3 times as much CO2 as many industrialized nations: including industrialized and technically advanced (often mountainous) northern European countries like: Germany, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland.

Granted, Canada is a vast land with cold winters but it produces much hydroelectricity.

Canada has 61% of its power produced by hydroelectricity.

With good conservation methods and the development of better public and private transportation, and green energy production, Canada could make huge improvements in its percapita CO2 production.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

SharingIsGood

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

to aid in clarifying previous post

[On a percapita basis] Canada ranks 10th in world production of CO2.

[On a percapita basis] Canada produces 2-3 times as much CO2 as many industrialized nations: including industrialized and technically advanced (often mountainous) northern European countries like: Germany, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland.

Canada has 61% of its [electrical] power produced by hydroelectricity.

mopled

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

So what?

First, there is no reason to keep track of a beneficial trace gas that increases agricultural production, unless one is worried about low levels impeding growth. It's why greenhouses are enriched to 1000 to 1200 ppm.

Maybe we should actually get some kind of reward for punching above our weight for our 2%.

Second, nobody here has translated Canada's 2% addition to the human part into parts per million.

Now why do you suppose that is?

And nobody has yet come up with a good science based reason why CO2 should be restricted.There is nothing to support the CO2 hypothesis of AGW/CC.

What part of NADA do Warmists not understand.

Climate is a controlled and censored topic at wiki.

Wikipedia’s Climate Doctor
Excerpt:
"Connolley took control of all things climate in the most used information source the world has ever known – Wikipedia. Starting in February 2003, just when opposition to the claims of the band members were beginning to gel, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site. He rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world’s most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period.

All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement."
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/18/lawrence-solomon-wikipedia-s-climate-doctor.aspx

ME2

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

Shame

Any of you cuckoo Warmists who can read Mopled's second link offered in his last post and still hold that "Cap an Trade" is not one enormous scam, should hang your heads in shame.

You're just a bunch of hypocrites wo are too proud to admit that all the mounting evidence continues to prove you've been sucked in big-time.

zalm

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

That's enough of this "World government" shite

"mopled is right. The warmingistas decry globalization but they are calling for global government. Hello! They imagine that this global government will be run by some enlightened socialists that will halt the progress of capitalism.

What planet are you on? This one has been run by an unaccountable, greedy government called Big Business for more than 250 years. Nobody needs to go into how every social advance and attempt at democratic fairness has been subverted or totally blocked by the needs of big business to monopolize all capital production - money, labour, equipment and resources - to their exclusive use, rendering the rest of us non-corporate warm bodies unable to compete for these same resources except on their terms. They invented a branch of theory called macroeconomics to justify it, improperly misappropriated theories from Ricardo and Smith to justify it, and have spent billions marketing this bogus theory to the rest of the world. Only a few have bought it. The rest see the evidence of their pocketbooks and think "Hmmmm....."

Except for a brief interregnum after WW2, this has been the way things have been forever. From 1938-1965 things changed, perhaps even for the better as big business was trying to regain control of a system that had gotten away from them - not necessarily into better hands, just different ones with different motives.

But slowly, since 1965, it's been reasserting its control to the detriment of what middle class is left in the world. A socialist government (assuming such exists, with big business still pulling the money levers like in Venezuela) wouldn't be any better or worse than what we've got now. Some of the poor might make out better. some of the middle class might make out worse. Big business will survive just fine, despite all the screaming.

But a socialist world government's not going to come about simply because you denialists psychotically insists so. Anyone who subscribes to that theory is not only a lunatic, but completely uneducated too.

zalm

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

Contrails???

Mopled? Really?

After years denying that the actions of 6 billion humans and the $4 quadrillion of capital and equipment they operate every day have any effect on the environment, all of a sudden a few piss-ant contrails are responsible for 15% of global climate alterations?

I'm just stunned. I really don't know what to say, except find someone to pinch you.

realisticman

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

Globalism

"One of the very few politicians who has dared to speak out against the new threat is Vaclav Klaus, the President of the Czech Republic, who castigated Chancellor Merkel for her back-to-front analogy. President Klaus has declared that environmentalism is the 21st century’s “biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity.”

"Recently, The New York Times’ Thomas Friedman suggested that totalitarian control might not be such a bad idea. “One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks,” he wrote. “But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century.

The new anti-capitalist thrust is supported by Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet leader who presided cluelessly over Communism’s implosion but is now treated as a skillful change agent. You can’t teach an old Communist new tricks but you can teach him to hide his old tricks behind new platitudes. Mr. Gorbachev continues ritually to castigate “blind faith in the all-powerful market,” and claims that he still wants what he always wanted: “the rational use of material resources, the end of poverty and inequality, and restored harmony with nature.” That is, the new green socialism."

Booker

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

Realisticman's Peter Foster

Realisticman, thanks for pointing out the ravings of another kook. Really made my Sunday morning.

Foster writes:

"The truly astonishing fact is that there is no evidence whatsoever either for the exhaustion of resources, the despoliation of the global environment, or any man-made impact on the climate."

Hmmm. Let think for a millisecond to see if I can come up with an example. Oh yeah. How about the price of oil? It's the same as it was twenty years ago (allowing for inflation), right? What? It isn't, you say? I wonder if it's getting scarcer, harder and more expensive to find? I hear that the prince is expected to rise further in the coming years. Is that because we AREN'T exhausting the supply? If so, that's a strange kind of capitalism.

It's really amazing to me that nutbars like Foster or Rex Murphy are able to get jobs in the major media. You would think that I'd be used to that sort of thing by now, but it still surprises me that that can happen. We humans really are, in Jared Diamond's phrase, the Third Chimpanzee.

KWD

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

another Sunday morning in Denialand

From Berlin to Copenhagen ... an interesting read.

When I got to the part that tries to link freedom and democracy with the market and prosperity, I knew the rest was going to be a lesson in alchemy … turning crap into gold.

But when I got to the claim that, “… there is no evidence whatsoever either for the exhaustion of resources, the despoliation of the global environment, or any man-made impact on the climate. These are merely plausible assumptions that have been easily cultivated amid the hysteria created by the likes of Al Gore, who received a Peace Prize for sowing unprecedented international discord.”, I knew for sure Peter Foster is a direct decendant of Rumpelstiltskin.

Some folks never manage to get over the pain of learning that life isn’t a fairy tale.

mopled

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

One of the most telling things about the AGW fraud

is how closely it resembles the MO of other scams, especially the use of the word "denier". The flu scare is a great example.

"Many aspects and tactics used in the massive vaccine propaganda, the lies, the deceit, the junk science and the political agendas behind the mass vaccinations are the same as those seen used to scare us all about the "coming climate change apocalypse", all depending on humanity we are assured.

The link behind the scene between these two horror stories is that the ruling elite is using fear and junk science to scare us into agreeing with actions we never would otherwise, and these actions are smoke screens for hidden agendas aiming at a one world government. Mass media is an effective tool to make the bulk of the population believe that the suffering and the sacrifices we all will have to live with is necessary to save humanity and the planet."
http://www.theflucase.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2316%3Alies-about-climate-change-shows-pattern&catid=3%3Anewsflash&lang=en

The other telling thing is that there is never anything of substance presented to uphold the idea of AGW. Name-calling isn't a substitute for proof and that is all Warmists ever manage.

Hasn't anybody figured out what 2% of 5% of 390 parts per million is yet?

I really have the feeling that I am dealing with fictitious characters run by a failed novelist who is arithmetically challenged rather than real folks sometimes. There can't be that many true believers when the stats show that fewer and fewer people are buying the climate catastrophe scenario with each new poll.

Jerry Munro

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

KWD Living Off The Avails...

KWD wrotes. "Hmmmm. Let me see … last Coyote post 43 minutes ago; previous post 1 hour ago … that’s approx 15 minutes."

You obviously have way too much time on your hands. She needs to send you out to work, instead of allowing you to continue to live off the avails. :-) There's a name for guys like you.

Pieter16

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

Incorrect premises

While reading this article, I noticed that somewhere along the lines people have concluded that growth necessarily means detrimental effects on our Earth. I would like to state that this premise is wrong. Growth does not mean that our planet will be affected in a negative way. Actually, the green movement can be incredibly profitable, growth can and should be welcomed and most of all it will obviously help to reduce the apparently bad emissions of CO2.

First, the initiative of the climate summits should be respected but altogether what they are accomplishing are "debts" or contracts which may be made upon false premises. I will not doubt that human activity is warming the globe since there is too much evidence supporting that we have at the very least warmed the Earth a fraction of the amount over time. However, there is also evidence supporting the fact that the pollutants we put into the air has actually helped to decrease the rate of warming (Levitt, and Dubner 180-196). It should be noted that it has been found that the cooling of the Earth over the past few years has been due to the El Nina effect but still needs hard evidence to support this to my knowledge.

Second, by focusing on something as insignificant as CO2 we are dooming all of our economies in the developing world since stunting growth at this pivotal point in time in our society, as a whole is not the best way to go about this issue. A more reasonable way of going about climate change in a physical way is not to suppress CO2, but to redistribute some of the pollutants into the stratosphere instead of the troposphere, the layer closest to the Earth. By moving the sulphur dioxide created by already existing and polluting power plants, especially coal, could be redistributed to the stratosphere where it will actually help to reduce or mitigate global warming. Is there scientific studies to back this up you ask? Yes, yes there is. When Mount Pinatubo erupted in 1991, there were a huge number of scientists there to exhaustively take measurements to the point that the material and results, still to this day, remain unchallenged. The sulphur dioxide spread into the atmosphere was undeniable: a decrease in ozone, more diffuse sunlight and yes a sustained drop in global temperatures (Levitt, and Dubner 190).
Continued on next comment....

Pieter16

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

Incorrect premises

The third and last point that I would like to make is about the half-life of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). Since, it is about one hundred years and atmospheric carbon dioxide does not necessarily warm the earth. This is because the ice-cap evidence (core samples) shows that over the past several hundred thousand years, carbon dioxide levels have risen after a rise in temperature, not the other way around.

Keeping all of this in mind and then listening to the arguments surrounding the climate change conference, it seems that what is going to be agreed on and apparently become 'legally bound,' is merely "*Too little *Too late *Too optimistic" (Nathan Myhrvold - Intellectual Ventures, 2009).

Due to the amount of outrage that seems to be displayed after presenting such an argument to common people, I would like to add a personal statement. This article is written in a such a way that is objective. I have not added in my own personal view on this subject. The information is merely for your own knowledge to expand the narrow mindedness of the general population who believes that CO2 emissions is the culprit and end all of the argument.

To add in a personal statement though, I strongly believe that we should be doing something to prevent such a global catastrophe as that which is apparently inevitabley going to happen if we do not divert our careless ways. It is better to have done something at the least, then to not have done something and the worst happen. However, looking at a problem in a narrow-minded perspective is only going to doom us even more so than something that is based almost purely on speculation.

References

Levitt, Steven D., and Stephen J. Dubner. SuperFreakonomics. First Canadian Edition. Toronto: HarperCollins Publishers Ltd., 2009. 180-196. Print.

North of Hope

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

Address for truth

Here is an address for the deniers who want a bit of truth.

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/12/17/showdown-with-plimer/

realisticman

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

Booker

In 1988 the average price of a house in Vancouver was $200,000 (VREB). What is it now about four times that, or more? Inflation in general has not gone up as much as real estate and oil. Oil has gone up because of wars and demand from emerging markets like China but there's still lots of it.

"Iraq's oil reserves are today estimated at 115 billion barrels of oil, against Iran -- with 137 billion and Saudi-Arabia with 268 billion. However, the seismic data for Iraq is from the 1970s and new, more modern technology will probably show that Iraq's reserves are much bigger, FT said, quoting experts. "

http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/2723637/

They don't mention Canada but many say Canada has the second largest reserves.

At the rate BC is exporting coal there are 250 years-worth of it left. The US has 500 years of coal left. "At the end of 2006 the recoverable coal reserves amounted around 800 or 900 gigatons. The United States Energy Information Administration gives world reserves as 930 billion short tons[50] (equal to 843 gigatons) as of 2006. At the current extraction rate, this would last 132 years.".

mopled

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

Doing the wrong thing in this case is far more

detrimental than doing nothing. CO2 residency is much shorter than the apocolyptic 100 years, as the latest research shows.
From the Abstract:
"In this study, using the combustion/chemical-engineering perfectly stirred reactor (PSR) mixing structure or 0D box for the model basis, as an alternative to the more commonly used global circulation models (GCMs), to define and determine the RT in the atmosphere and then using data from the IPCC and other sources for model validation and numerical determination, the data (1) support the validity of the PSR model application in this context and, (2) from the analysis, provide (quasi-equilibrium) RTs for CO2 of 5 years carrying C12 and 16 years carrying C14, with both values essentially in agreement with the IPCC short-term (4 year) value and, separately, in agreement with most other data sources, notably, a 1998 listing by Segalstad of 36 other published values, also in the range of 5−15 years. Additionally, the analytical results also then support the IPCC analysis and data on the longer “adjustment time” (100 years) governing the long-term rising “quasi-equilibrium” concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. For principal verification of the adopted PSR model, the data source used was the outcome of the injection of excess 14CO2 into the atmosphere during the A-bomb tests in the 1950s/1960s, which generated an initial increase of approximately 1000% above the normal value and which then declined substantially exponentially with time, with τ = 16 years, in accordance with the (unsteady-state) prediction from and jointly providing validation for the PSR analysis. With the short (5−15 year) RT results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the (independently based) conclusion that the long-term (100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors. This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenicaly driven as an outcome of combustion. The economic and political significance of that conclusion will be self-evident."

http://climateresearchnews.com/2009/08/atmospheric-residence-time-of-man-made-co2/

Yet another blow to AGW.

Booker

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

Pieter/Realisticman

Pieter, please tell me you are not using this

Levitt, Steven D., and Stephen J. Dubner. SuperFreakonomics. First Canadian Edition. Toronto: HarperCollins Publishers Ltd., 2009. 180-196. Print.

as your source for information on global warming. Did you miss the massive fisking the authors received because of the nonsense they wrote on that subject? One example (of dozens) here:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/why_everything_in_superfreakon.php

Realisticman, here is Fosters statement again:

"The truly astonishing fact is that there is no evidence whatsoever either for the exhaustion of resources, the despoliation of the global environment, or any man-made impact on the climate."

As you point out above, even if those stats turn our to be accurate, the resources are finite. We are running out of the easy supplies, and so the prices are rising quickly. Demand is rising, not staying stable. For him to argue that the environment is not being despoiled (has he seen Alberta?) indicates to me that he suffers from some developmental handicap. That he is a pundit for a national paper is absolutely astounding.

soleprobe

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

North of Hope

"...deniers who want a bit of truth."

You gatta be joking. ME2 was right. You people have no shame but also no conscience. With all the mounting evidence that has been coming out over the last month how you could utter the word "truth" is beyond the understanding of anyone with a sound mind. And I think that's it. All one has to do is look at the likes of those like you defend: super hypocritical freaks like Al Gore and one need not marvel regarding your likeness of mind and character.

Regarding your links, to click on one of them would be equivalent to clicking on a link desecrating the word “truth.”

Your influence is not growing but shrinking by the day to the point where all that will be left of the warmists camp is a dark pool of swindlers and con artists led by your chief representative Al Gore.

mopled

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

Freakanomics was published before Climategate

They might have a different emphasis now.
The authors do show up on a skeptics list over at realclimate, but McIntyre and McKlintock don't.
Discussion about the meaning of that here.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/20/a-telling-omission-by-real-climate/#more-14340

Steve McIntyre will be on (hold your noses) Fox tonight, at 9pm EST and probably 6 pm PST.
http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/20/fox-news-9-p-m/

It will be nice if and when CBC acknowledges the important work done by Canadians to bust the scam.

It will be nice when CBC replays "Doomsday Called Off",instead of Gore's tissue of lies, half-truths and exaggeration.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr5O1HsTVgA

Booker

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

"The Truth"

"Regarding your links, to click on one of them would be equivalent to clicking on a link desecrating the word “truth.”

That's the attitude. Close eyes, put fingers in ears, and go "wha wha wha wha".

I suggest you venture out of the paranoid, libertarian, militia-mad bubble, and check out some actual scientific data. It's not hard to find, but if you don't even want to look, that's your decision. Strange way to find "the truth".

soleprobe

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

"I suggest you venture out of the paranoid..."

I suggest you get a conscience if that's at all possible without personal catastrophic intervention at this point.

soleprobe

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

Steve McIntyre will be on (hold your noses) Fox tonight

Ya… they can’t completely bury the truth so they must attempt to polarize and discredit it through their phony wacko right with their totally verified basket cases like Beck and Palin. I suppose it’s better than no truth out at all through their phony wacko left.

"hold your noses"

Thanks for the heads up. I find squeezing my head as hard as I can while holding my nose seems to help.

Jerry Munro

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

PPM brinksmanship 1...

"No figure for Canada's CO2 production in ppm?" accuses mopled.

Nope.

But tell you what I do have. I have a wealth of experience out in the real world, especially in nature, and I can see the garbage, old tires in creeks, piles of shit and debris in the bush everywhere, in the most unlikely of places; the arsenic poisoned mining tail ponds, damned rivers and doomed fish stocks, and the signs of destructive human activity virtually everywhere, to the detriment of nature, including humans themselves.

I have lived the changing weather patterns and the decline of wild life species and habitat. I have observed the toxin laced haze that produces deadly beautiful sunsets over Vancouver and auto gridlock like one would not believe, as what passes for human progress and quality of life in human existence. I have seen and applied the deadly chemical mixes to the land that are used to control "weed" and insect proliferation, and the crops and livestock therefrom go for human consumption. (Escalating Downe Syndrome and Autism.)

I have seen the land and water essential to all life change recognizably from what was there before, filled with unbelievable quantities of human waste and chemical soups, unfit to swim in or drink for its fecal and pcb counts.

I have seen all this and more; the "empirical" evidence gathered over a lifetime that humans, and the greed driven systems they have put in place and live by like a land destroying Economic Religion, that are destroying everything. I remember as a lad, frogs everywhere in the ponds and along the water ribboned back roads and byways, even near towns long since become polluting monstrosities, now virtually bereft of any sign they were ever here. (And they are going to "intensify" habitation in these inhuman places even more, stacking people higher and higher like cordwood.)

contined next post...

Jerry Munro

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

PPM Brinksmanship 2...

Continued from above...

And then when I hear the North is losing its snow cover, and I know with my own eyes that the glaciers near me are being lost at an unbelievable rate, and others, the majority of scientific opinion, tells me of what they know about the processes at work here, it fits with what I know about the world of nature I live in.

And then when I know the majority deniers, not all I grant, for some "left" opinion as well, but generally those who buy into the greed system of capitalism and its "Don't give a rat's ass" view of the world and the needs of people and critters all... You'll perhaps then excuse me if I don't give a rat's ass about all your ppm arguments, that sound too much like all the other loose playing with statistics of the ruling class self servers and rightist nutbars. (I mean Beck!!! For sanity's sake!!)

I choose to believe my eyes, a lifetime of observation, and the most credible scientific evidence collaborating and explaining what I already know. You ppm denier theorists offer me no credible explanation for the pace and scale of it all, but only what will allow what I know is a cancer on the planet and human existence, to continue unmolested, destroying what I consider precious; a planet that sustains a plethora of life, not just that of the Capital profit takers and their zombied wannabe followers.

You lose yourself in that ppm minutia. I'll choose life and a more meaningful, to me, concept of real, not status quo notions of progress. My conclusion is that it all needs to be reconfigured and revamped, being instilled with a more compassionate and aware of nature content, before continuing much further.

If I'm going to err, I'll do so on the part of the planet, including humanity, not the profit takers and polluters.

mopled

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

Give me a break , Old tires indeed

Warmists keep trying that bs otherwise known as
obscurantism.

Stick to CO2...that was all Copenhagen was about

And the rants against capitalism are pretty funny given that it is capitalism that wins when they trade a new commodity and taxing us for breathing.

You can add the head of the IPCC to the list of insiders who will make a capitalist killing...Gore Strong, Obama, Goldman Sachs ...

Questions over business deals of UN climate change guru Dr Rajendra Pachauri
The head of the UN's climate change panel - Dr Rajendra Pachauri - is accused of making a fortune from his links with 'carbon trading' companies,
Although Dr Pachauri is often presented as a scientist (he was even once described by the BBC as “the world’s top climate scientist”), as a former railway engineer with a PhD in economics he has no qualifications in climate science at all.What has also almost entirely escaped attention, however, is how Dr Pachauri has established an astonishing worldwide portfolio of business interests with bodies which have been investing billions of dollars in organisations dependent on the IPCC’s policy recommendations.

These outfits include banks, oil and energy companies and investment funds heavily involved in ‘carbon trading’ and ‘sustainable technologies’, which together make up the fastest-growing commodity market in the world, estimated soon to be worth trillions of dollars a year.

Today, in addition to his role as chairman of the IPCC, Dr Pachauri occupies more than a score of such posts, acting as director or adviser to many of the bodies which play a leading role in what has become known as the international ‘climate industry’.

It is remarkable how only very recently has the staggering scale of Dr Pachauri’s links to so many of these concerns come to light, inevitably raising questions as to how the world’s leading ‘climate official’ can also be personally involved in so many organisations which stand to benefit from the IPCC’s recommendations.

The issue of Dr Pachauri’s potential conflict of interest was first publicly raised last Tuesday when, after giving a lecture at Copenhagen University, he was handed a letter by two eminent ‘climate sceptics’. One was the Stephen Fielding, the Australian Senator who sparked the revolt which recently led to the defeat of his government’s ‘cap and trade scheme’. The other, from Britain, was Lord Monckton, a longtime critic of the IPCC’s science, who has recently played a key part in stiffening opposition to a cap and trade bill in the US Senate. "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6847227/Questions-over-business-deals-of-UN-climate-change-guru-Dr-Rajendra-Pachauri.html

You're going to err alright, but it isn't so much "on the side of the planet", as it is on the side of the gangsters who run it.

SharingIsGood

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

well said, coyoteman

"If I'm going to err, I'll do so on the part of the planet, including humanity, not the profit takers and polluters."

Thank you, Coyoteman for your eloquent PPM Brinkmanship 1 & 2 postings.

You know, Coyoteman, my wife and I are in the process of becoming unhooked from our careers and starting life fresh in a new community. At our stage in life, it is not an undertaking that we do lightly: we are not spring, nor even summer chickens and we must be careful with our savings and how we divest of our past life. Although we live in rural BC (beyond Hope as far as the Premier believes), we are not currently as tied to they land as we would like to be, so we are building a modest new homestead on enough land and clean water enough to be able to support us should we need to be fully self-sufficient. Wonderfully, we have found a community full of like-minded people who have been living on and with the land for generations. We intend to maintain a small footprint. We still have frogs and salamanders, and native wild berries, etc. that we hope to have remain on the property. You get the idea.

You and Mrs. Coyote will be welcome at our table anytime you are in the neighbourhood.

Jerry Munro

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

PPM bull crap...

"Stick to CO2...that was all Copenhagen was about."

No,you and even "they" might like to make it that CO2 emissions is all its about. You and "they" may narrow it down that way, to suit the new "green investment" economic agenda that capitalism would like to confine it all to, so that it can continue to pursue its/their "endless growth" illusions, and kick start the capitalist economy out of its collapse, but I don't and won't.

Even IF everyone on the streets at Copenhagen bought into that being what it is all about... And I don't giver a rat's ass what the ruling class's elites there thought it was all about and were trying to make the agenda. ...that's sure as hell not what it is all about to me.

You just keep your head parked up there where the ppm sun never shines, I'll stay out here in the light of day, I know that you and they would like to narrow it all down to that alone. Only I ain't buying their world view, as important as all the shit we're pouring into the atmosphere may be, or your "we're alright jack" ppm view of it all, that likewise attempts to deflect and obfuscate the larger picture of a failing world order economic system, and its effect on the planet's wellbeing.

You will err as likely, no doubt. Only with your error, by the time its discovered and corrected, it will likely be all too late, for the worlds oceans etc. Meanwhile the creeks and waterways of my hometown, which you are so quick to dismiss, are still getting too overcome with old tires, plastic bags and the other flotsam crap of endless growth and too many people capitalism.

With my error, assuming you are right, which I don't buy, at least no harm will have been done. Indeed the air quality situation will be improved at the very least... insofar as the narrow ppm air quality issue will be concerned.

I'd rather take my chances with my possible error, than buy into yours, that was pulled right out of a dark, dank hole. If that's alright with you. (I'm not really asking.)

North of Hope

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

soleprobe

There has been no mounting evidence of non-global warming. There has been misinterpretation of the hacked e-mails. That is not mounting evidence.

Here is an explanation of the word trick. It does not always mean deceit or maybe you don't play bridge.
One e-mail talked of displaying the data using a 'trick' — slang for a clever (and legitimate) technique, but a word that denialists have used to accuse the researchers of fabricating their results.

Some sites to check but it may not matter as your mind is made up and science doesn't matter.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html

http://akwag.blogspot.com/2009/12/follow-money-trail-to-global-warming.html

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html

http://www.ipcc.ch/

http://www.desmogblog.com/

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/11/23/the-knights-carbonic/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Opinion/1155915.html

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/12/07/the-real-climate-scandal/

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/climate-change/breach-in-global-warming-bunker-rattles-climate-science-at-worst-time/article1389842/

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/science/earth/09climate.html?_r=2&hp

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html

Jerry Munro

2 years ago

Suggest as offensive

Sharing Is Good

Sharing Is Good,

Brother, it is a pleasure to read of your plans. I understand the mixture of excitement and concern that you will be experiencing. I'm far from a spring, even fall chicken myself. :-)

But so long as you are reasonably healthy, and especially if your wife is into it as well, we can still have incredible adventures. The very best to you and your fine wife. Go for it!

I'd like to take one more such adventure myself, but I've take Mrs Coyote once too often into the "way out there". :-) She wants to be near her extended family, and at least within striking distance of the "amenities". :-) And I've had it my way probably more than I deserved, so now its her turn... at least somewhat. :-)

One day on here, when you folks are settled, I'll post my email address, and maybe we can meet up. (I don't want to do it prematurely, because I'll be overwhelmed with "the blighters." :-)

Take care, brother. Always a pleasure. And good luck.

Coyoteman

The discussion for this story is closed. No more comments can be added.

In Copenhagen, the New Radicals

Copenhagen Contradictions

Copenhagen Meltdown

In the heart of Copenhagen, a 'people's' climate forum

Against Copenhagen

79

EastVanMan

Glad you are enjoying your

seth

The anwer

Van Isle

All the people who are for

alive

Titanic

Jerry Munro

Ass Wipe 1...

Jerry Munro

Ass Wipe 2...

freebear

We atcually have to hit the iceberg!

soleprobe

A perfect image...

mopled

They may have achieved "global governance" afterall

realisticman

Is this how the revolution

Skywalker

At least they are doing something...

realisticman

Skywalker

Frank

r/man

Janie Jones

Be scared.

Skywalker

Thanks Frank.

Wilfride Laurier

Climate Change

Luke

Copenhagen...

silvervalley

Global governance connection

mopled

WL,That is just it, we can't do anything

willy

climategate

Frank

Newsflash

Jerry Munro

When your enemy is advancing with superior force....

Frank

willy

carfreed

co-operativism

SicPreFix

mopled ...

mopled

I never said Ventura was an authority, just that he covered the

Fiat lux

Accept the definition of

Jerry Munro

Fait Lux On Nuclear Power Delusions...

mopled

Unless you get them to repudiate the lunacy

SicPreFix

mopled ...

SicPreFix

A wee song ...

realisticman

mopled

mopled

I try to be a balance to the propaganda that passes for

SicPreFix

On mopled balancing propaganda, etc.

Fiat lux

Slowing things down would

mopled

Sic spin and Ed the economist

KWD

no problem, no solution