Durban Climate Change Conference

[BigJohn]

@fred smith

[quote]Are you saying that Wigley represents the pro-Kyoto forces in some substantial way? Like officially, or he is someone with stature in the community that has been accepted as a leader by a wide constituency of pro-Kyoto governments and organizations?

You have my source. You have Tigerman´s source. Both show that Kyoto will have a minimal effect on climate change. And here you have more from the National Public Radio (NPR) which is known to all far and wide for its conservative global warming denial.
[/quote]

Fine, that’s great thanks. And very interesting, actually. All I wanted was some good links to back up the statement, which we now have.

@fred smith

[quote]As diplomats from around the world gather in Durban, South Africa, for talks about climate change, a big question looms: What will become of the Kyoto climate treaty, which was negotiated with much fanfare in 1997. The treaty was supposed to be a first step toward much more ambitious actions on climate change, but it is now on the brink of fading into irrelevance. That could have major implications for the future of United Nations climate talks.

[color=#FF4040]
Even under the best of circumstances, the Kyoto protocol would have made a barely measurable dent in the amount of greenhouse gases flowing into the Earth’s atmosphere.
[/color]
We have very little space left in our atmosphere to be continuing to pollute before we cross certain thresholds where impacts will be inevitable.

• Jennifer Morgan, director, Climate and Energy Program, World Resources Institute
  First, the United States decided not to ratify the treaty, so our emissions aren’t covered by the pact. Then China leapfrogged the U.S. to become the world’s biggest emitter of carbon dioxide. But China is treated like a developing country under the Kyoto treaty, which means it has no obligations. Even so, Europe and a few other nations have been soldiering on.[/quote]

npr.org/2011/11/29/142907053 … ate-future

And more on the subject:

[quote]Gupta et al. (2007) assessed the literature on climate change policy.
They found that no authoritative assessments of the UNFCCC or its Protocol asserted that these agreements had, or will, succeed in solving the climate problem.[
11] In these assessments, it was assumed that the UNFCCC or its Protocol would not be changed. The Framework Convention and its Protocol include provisions for future policy actions to be taken.

World Bank (2010, p. 233) commented on how
the Kyoto Protocol had only had a slight effect on curbing global emissions growth
.[20] The treaty was negotiated in 1997, but by 2005, energy-related emissions had grown 24%. World Bank (2010) also stated that the treaty had provided only limited financial support to developing countries to assist them in reducing their emissions and adapting to climate change.

Some of the criticism of the Protocol has been based on the idea of climate justice (Liverman, 2008, p. 14).[34] This has particularly centred on the balance between the low emissions and high vulnerability of the developing world to climate change, compared to high emissions in the developed world.

Some environmentalists have supported the Kyoto Protocol because it is "
the only game in town," and possibly because they expect that future emission reduction commitments may demand more stringent emission reductions
(Aldy et al…, 2003, p. 9).[35] In 2001, sixteen national science academies[45] stated that ratification of the Protocol represented a “small but essential first step towards stabilising atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.”[46] Some environmentalists and scientists have criticized the existing commitments for being too weak (Grubb, 2000, p. 5).[47]

In May 2010 the Hartwell Paper was published by the London School of Economics. The authors argued that after what they regard as the failure of the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Summit,
the Kyoto Protocol "has failed to produce any discernable real world reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases in fifteen years
" and that this failure opened an opportunity for a re-orientation towards a climate policy based on human dignity instead of human sinfulness.[52][53][/quote]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol

Good stuff, all of it.

[quote=“fred smith”]

The cost issue is very relevant, of course. I certainly don’t have a plan, not being an international statesman or economics expert. I feel that it is a valid topic of debate, and welcome learning more.

So why don´t you get busy for a change and go find something that supports any plan of any kind at all and show how this plan in your view would be feasible. You want to learn more do you? Well, when those you instinctively disagree with provide evidence to support their positions you keep rejecting them out of hand and stating that they are not credible BUT you never provide any links of any kind to show why they are not credible NOR do you provide anything to buttress your case. Am I mischaracterizing your approach to posting and discussion in this forum? Or would you like to correct me by pointing to all the links and evidence that you have provided? Up to you… I will be waiting… as I have since the very beginning of this discussion.[/quote]

Oh, you are asking me for my program to deal with Global Warming? Well, actually I don’t have one, do you? Does anyone here have “the solution”? I am sure it has a lot to do with encouraging the development of energy sources that do not produce GHG. Obviously that means renewable energy investment incentives, R’n’D funding, etc. And reducing unnecessary use of fossil fuels. But if you want a white paper on the subject, you’ll have to wait a bit. I don’t have one in my back pocket.

But that does not necessarily mean that a solution cannot or will not be found. But it will never be found if people deny AGW is happening, despite the consensus of the top climate scientists, without actually having demonstrably better science than them. Am you mischaracterizing your approach to posting and discussion in this forum? Yes you are. We have gotten into a few disagreement, and in each case I pointed out some flaws in your basic reasoning - at least in the basic reasoning of certain posts. In retaliation, you asked me some kind of red herring question, and then pointed out that I never answered it, while also ignoring many of my links and points. That’s my perception, at any rate. But I will not revisit past arguments. Instead, we can look forward to more civilized discourse in the future, hopefully.

Again, I have never claimed to be an expert on the subject, but have merely asked you to back up what you are saying. Being an amateur expert of some sort on the subject does not grant you the right to make sweeping statements without backing them up, nor accusing another person of being evasive.

Have I made any clear thesis statements about my attitudes towards global warming that require proof?

[fred_smith]

How do the new posts and the sources cited differ from those provided initially by me and Tigerman? Would you like to explain why the first two were unacceptable to you and why you required additional ones and why these two are now acceptable to you?

Oh, you are asking me for my program to deal with Global Warming? Well, actually I don’t have one, do you?

I am not the one suggesting that global warming is a do-or-die issue that requires urgent action.

Does anyone here have “the solution”?

Clearly, you do not. And I certainly would not dream of presenting a solution when I am the one suggesting that no one has one.

I am sure it has a lot to do with encouraging the development of energy sources that do not produce GHG. Obviously that means renewable energy investment incentives, R’n’D funding, etc. And reducing unnecessary use of fossil fuels. But if you want a white paper on the subject, you’ll have to wait a bit. I don’t have one in my back pocket.

So, you require that I provide links to sources but you refuse yet again to provide anything that would buttress anything that you have suggested above?

But that does not necessarily mean that a solution cannot or will not be found.

Relevance?

But it will never be found if people deny AGW is happening,

The two are not necessarily linked logically or otherwise and if I am the one suggesting that at best global warming is not serious and at worst even if it is that no solution is going to solve the problem, I am being consistent, you are not.

despite the consensus of the top climate scientists, without actually having demonstrably better science than them.

I disagree that there is a consensus. Would you like to show that there is one? and consensus regarding what? that the earth is warming and that man is responsible for x percentage of it and that spending y or engaging in z behavior will lead to q reduction in said warming with v benefit? I will wait for your source and cite on that.

Am you mischaracterizing your approach to posting and discussion in this forum? Yes you are. We have gotten into a few disagreement, and in each case I pointed out some flaws in your basic reasoning - at least in the basic reasoning of certain posts.

No, you have merely raised questions and when the answers are provided with challenges to you, you run off and hide like a little girl.

In retaliation, you asked me some kind of red herring question, and then pointed out that I never answered it, while also ignoring many of my links and points.

Links and points… okay, which links and points are you referring to?

That’s my perception, at any rate.

I am sure that IS your perception which is why you have missed the doubly ironically symbollically funny mirroring of the incoherence of the occupy Wall Street movement with your own responses and behavior here.

But I will not revisit past arguments.

I am entirely sure that you would prefer not to. Your lack of input has been most interesting… hardly an argument more like pleading. Can you post a link? Can you cite a source? Can you? Will you?

Instead, we can look forward to more civilized discourse in the future, hopefully.

By all means, especially if you mean that you demand all the evidence and refuse to provide any of the same yourself while temping information that you have requested as multiple posting. Sounds good to me. What could possibly be wrong with that?

Again, I have never claimed to be an expert on the subject, but have merely asked you to back up what you are saying.

As a POSTER yes, and you have not reciprocated by posting evidence or citing the same in return.

Being an amateur expert of some sort on the subject does not grant you the right to make sweeping statements without backing them up, nor accusing another person of being evasive.

So would you like to suggest here and now that I am the one who has not provided backup for sweeping statements? Gosh… there´s that word that keeps coming to mind every time I engage in a debate? argument? discussion? what exactly would you call this?

Have I made any clear thesis statements about my attitudes towards global warming that require proof?

If you are going to ask for the same then I would say yes. Refer to your ¨theories¨on what needs to be done regarding global warming above or that there is a consensus. I think that the issue here like the one with regard to Occupy Wall Street is that you presume that the evidence is well self-evident. The protesters are right to be there. Global warming is an issue. We must do something about it. Everyone knows that right? But I disagree and have made a very strong case against that for longer than you have been around. I said all along that Kyoto would fail and I also stated that the effort to control greenhouse gas emissions along the lines proposed would not lead to the results that would lead to making any kind of investment in the same worthwhile. I guess that I am right so I will just say I told you so and leave it at that… I am sure you will understand.

[BigJohn]

[quote=“fred smith”]

Have I made any clear thesis statements about my attitudes towards global warming that require proof?

If you are going to ask for the same then I would say yes. Refer to your ¨theories¨on what needs to be done regarding global warming above or that there is a consensus. I think that the issue here like the one with regard to Occupy Wall Street is that you presume that the evidence is well self-evident.The protesters are right to be there. [/quote]

This is OT, wrong thread. And don’t make it personal; attack the message, not the messenger.

@fred smith

Global warming is an issue. We must do something about it. Everyone knows that right?

Yes because the world’s top climate scientists say so. And because those opposing it do so in a way that reeks of self interest, and is suspiciously multipronged: the earth is actually getting cooler AND the earth is getting warmer but it’s not because of humans. It is more of a position against the green movement instead of for anything. So, all those governments are their in Durban why? Because they think it’s purely political? They don’t believe in it?

[ChewDawg]

@BigJohn

And because those opposing it do so in a way that reeks of self interest

You really think so? I think the people that oppose global warming aren’t all that self-interested at all. I would say they are balanced and not eco-fundamentalist dunces. They realize that the earth’s warming and cooling periods are perfectly normal and such green alarmism is being pushed by people with an agenda.

To me, the real self interest here is with governments that want to spend more and more of taxpayer’s dollars to fly to global conferences, expand the size of their governments, promote or provide subsidies to businesses that have no hope of succeeding, and who pick on sectors of the economy their would like to see fail.

[fred_smith]

This is OT, wrong thread. And don’t make it personal; attack the message, not the messenger.

I meant to say what will it take you to actually post a link or any evidence of any kind to buttress your views?

fred smith wrote:
Global warming is an issue. We must do something about it. Everyone knows that right?

Yes because the world’s top climate scientists say so.

Ah… that never gets answered does it? So we are back to who do you believe? well, you have posted NOTHING of any kind to support any of your views will demanding the same of me as a POSTER and also as a MODERATOR. The fact that you cannot post anything leads me to believe that the next step will be for you to act as a moderator to win what you cannot as a poster because you simply do not have the ability to defend your positions. Simple enough.

And because those opposing it do so in a way that reeks of self interest, and is suspiciously multipronged: the earth is actually getting cooler AND the earth is getting warmer but it’s not because of humans. It is more of a position against the green movement instead of for anything. So, all those governments are their in Durban why? Because they think it’s purely political? They don’t believe in it?

I would say those governments are there for the same reason you believe in the climate scientists… bit of emperor´s new clothes… but I suppose that your saying reeks of self interest is not an insult or suspiciously multipronged is not either but you would be offended if I said your posts were suspiciously empty of meaning and that it was demeaning to have to discuss issues with you as a poster which I would not dream of doing . You have no support for your arguments, you have no evidence but you carry the big stick to knock everything down in your path. But I clearly am the one who is the bully that won´t listen to reason, right?
:bravo: :bravo: :bravo: :bravo: :bravo:

[Mick]

[quote=“fred smith”]

There is no appetite for a binding agreement in the US, although they hide behind all major countries must be included.

Is there a difference WHY there is no appetite in the US? The US gets beaten up by all and sundry for being evil and selfish and unconcerned. What if the US has looked at the available evidence and we have decided that a. the proof is not there or even worse that b. the cost of actions is too high and not worth the effort and worst of all c. that any effort to waste trillions will not lead to any appreciable result?

It is like the UK criticizing and staying away from the Euro. It was treated as a traitor by all and sundry because it went against the accepted wisdom which was not very wise really by pointing out all the potential flaws and how the euro would not work. But it had the audacity to go against what made those involved feel good. It was a noble effort. Never mind that it would not work. It was the purpose behind it that mattered. Now we find ourselves in euro hell. Why then is it so difficult so unacceptable for those who have bought the global warming threat hook line and sinker to understand that those of us who disagree with their stance have thought long and hard about this (more so than many of the believers) and we simply do not see how the proposed plan will work. I have asked and asked and asked and asked for anyone to supply evidence of a plan and how it will deliver… nothing so far… after years of asking… No one can show me a plan that will deliver x in benefit and y cost.[/quote]

The US I’m sure has very good reasons for not wanting to join a binding agreement. I wasn’t demonizing them, just stating a fact. No global binding agreement will be made, or at least none with any real meaning without the participation of the United States.

The WHY, belongs more in the global warming thread. But as far as the Durban conference is concerned, it always had cluster fuck written all over it. But my comments weren’t just aimed at the US, India and China now are being asked to be included in countries that need to address their emissions. I understand you have said, why not, but as far as the conference was concerned, this was not going to be a walk in the park, Chinas already learned the lingo promising to cut emissions intensity by 20% by 2020. Which means they are not promising to cut emissions at all, India was pushing for a second period of non commitment, which is not surprising since they predict their emissions will grow 3 or 4 fold over the next 20 years.

So it seems the conclusion was everyone agreed we need to do something to make themselves feel good about the outcome, and all countries will be a part of that, the Guardian hailed it as Europe has brought about a new phase in global climate policy. [quote] It agreed that this new legal framework must be concluded by 2015 and come into force from 2020[/quote]

Anyone taking bets that a new legal framework will be concluded by 2015? Anyone?

[BigJohn]

As a POSTER:

@fred smith

[quote]This is OT, wrong thread. And don’t make it personal; attack the message, not the messenger.

I meant to say what will it take you to actually post a link or any evidence of any kind to buttress your views? [/quote]

I am not going to go on a research mission for you. You can check out the IPCC by yourself. My view is that they are probably right because of their expertise in the matter.

[quote=“fred smith”]
You have no support for your arguments, you have no evidence but you carry the big stick to knock everything down in your path. But I clearly am the one who is the bully that won´t listen to reason, right?[/quote]

What are these arguments I have supposedly made? I explained my beliefs, I did not insist anyone else accept them. Who said this was a fierce debating pit, where all opinions must be backed up with links and argued incessantly for years? That is your trip, not mine. How about this? I fully and totally acknowledge that you have done a far better job than I of presenting detailed arguments linked to supporting data in this thread, and in all others relating to Global Warming. Good for you. You are IMO clearly the leading poster in this area for F.com, and have raised the bar for us all.

But that does not grant you the right to demand that everyone else discuss the issues in the same way . I - and every other poster, mod of otherwise - has the right to discuss the issues of our times and explain our viewpoints without being attacked. My viewpoint is that the top guys are probably right. If you want to disprove them, go for it.

As a MODERATOR:

[quote=“fred smith”]
Global warming is an issue. We must do something about it. Everyone knows that right?

Yes because the world’s top climate scientists say so.

Ah… that never gets answered does it? So we are back to who do you believe? well, you have posted NOTHING of any kind to support any of your views will demanding the same of me as a POSTER and also as a MODERATOR. The fact that you cannot post anything leads me to believe that the next step will be for you to act as a moderator to win what you cannot as a poster because you simply do not have the ability to defend your positions. Simple enough. [/quote]

I am allowed to participate in threads as a poster. I have not demanded you answer any questions in my capacity as a moderator. No one, including myself, is allowed to make personal insults to other posters. Posters are also required to show some respect for the moderators’ wishes in moderating the thread. I have asked you to stop making it personal, but you insist on doing so. If you insist on posting so much in the threads, hounding me for answers to questions, and showing contempt for the rules, then you cannot complain if your posts get moderated.

If on the other hand, you tone down your level of aggression, respect the rules, and stop making the issues personal, I would be glad to answer any reasonable question you have.

Can you do that? If not, why don’t we both give this current fracas a break, if only for the benefit of the other posters. Or we can take it to PMs if you like.

[bob]

@fred smith

[quote]to teach a moron something… (Apologies to all morons in the audience.)

So would you say that my comments and my stance are beneath your contempt? Is that how you would like to phrase it? or is that the interpretation of your view that I am a moron and even worse a moron than the vast majority so that you would need to apologize to all other morons in the audience? and who would those morons be exactly?

Gosh Bob. Lots of rain. I think that your obsession with the same is cute but since the earth is going to be destroyed (according to the Mayan calendar) in 2012, so what? All your worries will be for naught when Mother Earth, the Earth Mother, Gaia gets her revenge so stop worrying… be happy… light a candle… plug in something electric… drive a fossil-fuel, er, fueled vehicle. Have a nice day.[/quote]

I dunno man. You go around insulting people’s intelligence all the time but when somebody turns it around on you it seems that you find it hard to take, even if it is pretty obviously intended as a bit of a joke. I don’t actually think you are a moron or I wouldn’t waste so much time talking to you. What actually IS moronic though is your insistance om mis-characterizng people all the time, which you did again just now in the second paragraph above. You could have watched the videos and asked yourself whether or not by gosh that really does seem like a lot of big floods in a lot of different places in the world occuring with a short span of time. In some cases two floods in two years in the same location.

I am not saying that my little collection of videos is “proof” of anything but given the fact that we know that it IS getting warmer, and that water evaporates faster in higher temperatures the recent events appear ominous. Flooding will be the effect of global warming that really wakes people up for the simple reason that a high percentage of the world’s people live in enormous cities built in flood plains.

[fred_smith]

So it seems the conclusion was everyone agreed we need to do something to make themselves feel good about the outcome, and all countries will be a part of that, the Guardian hailed it as Europe has brought about a new phase in global climate policy.

Yeah. I for one never saw that coming… the need to feel good about themselves.

As to Big John: Nice try but you have regularly asked-demanded me to supply evidence promising to the do the same and then you end up with something lame like ¨you can go check out the IPCC web site yourself because I am not a scientist and I am not going to do your work for you.¨ It is precisely THAT not winning some debate that is what is the issue. You don´t engage in the debate at all. And on that note, I end my conversation with you on this subject.

Bob: Honestly, there are days… do you think that I wrote about your use of MORON because I was feeling sensitive or insulted? Think about it. I was merely comparing levels of insults and the like for, er, no apparent reason…

[bob]

OK. Anyway, the videos are a fascinating watch regardless of whether or not you think they actually contribute anything to the global warming debate. I hope you give them a watch.

[fred_smith]

OK. Anyway, the videos are a fascinating watch regardless of whether or not you think they actually contribute anything to the global warming debate. I hope you give them a watch.

Another fascinating thing to watch (at least I think so) is water running down the drain of the bath tub or toilet. Supposedly it goes clockwise one side of the equater and counterclockwise another but I heard that this was just an urban myth. What do you think? Should I keep flushing for empirical evidence or can I take an expert´s word on this?

[BigJohn]

@fred smith

As to Big John: Nice try but you have regularly asked-demanded me to supply evidence promising to the do the same and then you end up with something lame like ¨you can go check out the IPCC web site yourself because I am not a scientist and I am not going to do your work for you.¨ It is precisely THAT not winning some debate that is what is the issue. You don´t engage in the debate at all. And on that note, I end my conversation with you on this subject.

That was related to one thing I said. But the main thing I said was I would be happy to debate with you if you did so in a civil manner.

[fred_smith]

happy to debate

Debate to me would indicate that you would actually have to post something of value. When you do, I will be civil. Bye now.

[TainanCowboy]

Devolved into the usual poo-fling fest…so…hows about a relevant video?

and yes…the AGW Warmist agenda is all about money, power and political indoctrination.

Get It Out of the Schools!

[ChewDawg]

His father would be turning over in his grave. He often gave people the finger but never during civilized debate. Of course a champagne socialist like Trudeau would love to spend lots of taxpayer dollars on useless initiatives. In that way, he’s very similar to his old man!

[quote]Liberal MP Justin Trudeau lost his temper and called Environment Minister Peter Kent a “piece of sh**” during question period in the House of Commons Wednesday while Kent responded to questions about the Kyoto Accord.

Canada recently backed out of Kyoto – a move critics say severely weakens the international climate change agreement.

New Democrat environment critic Megan Leslie was questioning Kent on the decision to abandon Kyoto at the recent climate conference in Durban, South Africa.

She suggested Canada was backing out in order to hide its failure at reducing emission to Kyoto’s targets, saying “the rest of the world is moving forward, building a new energy economy, but Canada is being left behind.”

Kent responded: “If she had been in Durban she would have seen in fact that Canada is a leader…” before he was drowned out by Trudeau shouting “you are a piece of sh**” and the House of Commons erupting briefly into shouting.

ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20 … z1gYsaAWuO
[/quote]

[BigJohn]

@fred smith

[quote]happy to debate

When you do, I will be civil. Bye now.[/quote]

Now that I doubt!

[fred_smith]

His father would be turning over in his grave.

While you are speaking hypothetically… maybe someone should, that is dig him up, just to determine the turning or non-turning? We could have a reality TV show and the Kardashians could get out there with a shovel and Kim or one of the other K-named dipshits could break a nail or something… think of the DRAMA!!! I could JUST DIE!

[Gao_Bohan]

@BigJohn

It is more of a position against the green movement instead of for anything.

In this manner, global warming denialism is similar to Creationism, a movement uniquely committed to attacking evolutionary science without providing substantive proof for its own assertions. Also similar to global warming denialism, the methods of Creationism are multipronged. There are no fossils evidencing evolutionary progression; there are fossils, but they’re planted by the Devil to trick you; there are fossils, but they’re planted by God to test your faith.

It’s worth noting that, in the US at least, global warming denialism is something associated with Creationism and is advocated by the same groups.

[Gao_Bohan]

@fred smith

Debate to me would indicate that you would actually have to post something of value.

You have repeatedly demonstrated, in multiple threads across many years, that you are not interested in any serious discussion. You accept any argument against AGW at face value, regardless of the source, and reject credible scientific evidence in its favor with vehement denials and personal attacks.

[fred_smith]

You have repeatedly demonstrated, in multiple threads across many years, that you are not interested in any serious discussion. You accept any argument against AGW at face value, regardless of the source, and reject credible scientific evidence in its favor with vehement denials and personal attacks.

Oh, you now have proof of rising sealevels?

Also, IF global temperatures are warming, how much is the result of manmade actions? can you fix a percentage on that beyond “likely” with a concensus level of 45%. And who are you using to determine concensus? a bunch of United Nations politicos and bureaucrats who have nothing to do with climate science and who are out to get more funding for their government cuz they can smell fools ready to part with their cash miles away. See Nigerian 411 or whatever that fraud code is. AND MOST IMPORTANT when have you or anyone else shown here how much money will achieve what success with what benefit? Did I miss something? And even with Kyoto as has been repeatedly posted and proved here the supporters admit that it would only stave off global warming six years in the next 100 for an almost negligible result in the BEST CASE scenario.

I suggest to you that more bran needs to be included in your breakfast because either you are serious constipated or you woke up on the wrong side of bed today. Time for apology No. 2?

And while we are on the subject, I have posted extensively with numerous links (too many for some) and I can articulate my position very clearly. YOU may disagree with that but you cannot say I have not done my homework. Please show me where and when Big John has ever posted anything that remotely appears to be a case (mounting a cohesive defense, wasn’t it?) for his views on ANYTHING. Now, there’s a task for you. Get busy and show me where and when Big John has added anything of value and I will certainly look into it. I shall, smirk smirk, await your mounting of a cohesive defense with great anticipation!