40 year deadline to cut carbon emissions in half!

Heineken Helen

All the talk about the G8 menu and what the important people like to eat has overshadowed the much more important and exciting announcement that

the G8 nations "came to a mutual recognition" that cutting emissions by at least half "should be a global target".

:rolleyes:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/G8-Summit-Agrees-To-Halve-Greenhouse-Gases-By-50-Per-Cent-By-2050/Article/200807215027421?lpos=World%2BNews_3&lid=ARTICLE_15027421_G8%2BSummit%2BAgrees%2BTo%2BHalve%2BGreenhouse%2BGases%2BBy%2B50%2BPer%2BCent%2BBy%2B2050

Yip there ya have it folks :rolleyes: a 40 year deadline all these men know they'll be pretty much dead by then... and if they're not, they certainly won't be answering ANY questions.

Sooo... they spent £238 million pounds to come up with that

Heineken Helen

The eight leaders pledged to work with nearly 200 states in United Nations climate change talks to adopt the goal.

However, there was immediate criticism from climate change campaigners who said the pledge did not go far enough.

Environmental group WWF criticised the lack of a commitment to midterm targets and said the 2050 goal was insufficient because many scientists say bigger cuts are needed to address climate change.

In a statement the organisation said: "The G8 are responsible for 62% of the carbon dioxide accumulated in the Earth's atmosphere, which makes them the main culprit of climate change and the biggest part of the problem.

"WWF finds it pathetic that they still duck their historic responsibility."

Greenpeace executive director John Sauven said: "The G8 leaders have failed the world again.

"We needed tough targets for the richest countries to slash emissions in the next 100 months, but instead we got ambiguous long-term targets for the world in general."

South African environment minister Marthinus van Schalkwyk said the announcement set out a "vision" but no firm targets to achieve big cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.

He said: "To be meaningful and credible a long-term goal must have a base year.

"It must be underpinned by ambitious mid-term targets and actions and it should be based on an equitable burden-sharing paradigm.

"It is regrettable that the lowest common denominator in the G8 determined the level of ambition in the G8 declaration on climate change."



Leaders relax between meetings

Climate change had promised to be one of the most contentious subjects being discussed by the world's richest countries.

Last year's G8 summit agreed to "seriously consider" cutting carbon emissions by 50% by 2050.

But negotiators had struggled to improve on that pledge.

The leaders of the most powerful industrialised nations are meeting in Japan to discuss the main issues facing the world economy.

China and India - who are not in G8 - say it is up to the heavily-polluting developed world to take the lead in the fight against global warming.

But US President George Bush says rapidly developing nations must play their part and has been unwilling to set goals without the two countries.

European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso warned of the "I will do nothing unless you do it first" approach, which he called a "vicious circle".

G8 environment ministers said in May there was a "strong political will" to meet the 2050 target but that a consensus had not been reached on midterm targets for 2020.

The G8 consists of the US, Russia, France, Italy, Germany, Canada, Britain and Japan.

......

polaris

the worst is Canada! ...

Heineken Helen

polaris wrote:

the worst is Canada! ...

Hey cmon... Canada's just there to make up the numbers. G7 doesn't have the same ring as G8. Canada's about as influential and important to the G8 as Ireland is to Europe :rolleyes:

polaris

Heineken Helen wrote:

Hey cmon... Canada's just there to make up the numbers. G7 doesn't have the same ring as G8. Canada's about as influential and important to the G8 as Ireland is to Europe :rolleyes:

actually - we are very influential ... since our right wing gov't took over - canada has been instrumental in disrupting and bogging down talks associated with climate change ... we're actually worst than the states for it ...

Heineken Helen

polaris wrote:

actually - we are very influential ... since our right wing gov't took over - canada has been instrumental in disrupting and bogging down talks associated with climate change ... we're actually worst than the states for it ...

:( how the hell did CANADA end up with a right wing government?

polaris

Heineken Helen wrote:

:( how the hell did CANADA end up with a right wing government?

about 33%of the population votes that way all the time ... the other parties are all middle or left ... the votes were getting split amongst the rest of the population giving the conservatives the most seats ...

Heineken Helen

polaris wrote:

about 33%of the population votes that way all the time ... the other parties are all middle or left ... the votes were getting split amongst the rest of the population giving the conservatives the most seats ...

:( bet ya wish ya had a two party system, eh?

polaris

Heineken Helen wrote:

:( bet ya wish ya had a two party system, eh?

hahaha!! ... hell no ... most people here feel a minority gov't works best ... unfortunately, it would be better if one of the other parties was the ruling party ...

Heineken Helen

polaris wrote:

hahaha!! ... hell no ... most people here feel a minority gov't works best ... unfortunately, it would be better if one of the other parties was the ruling party ...

Do you have a coalition government? Or how does 33% win? Is it literally just three parties? Hmm... sorry, kinda off topic. Perhaps I should just go wiki

polaris

Heineken Helen wrote:

Do you have a coalition government? Or how does 33% win? Is it literally just three parties? Hmm... sorry, kinda off topic. Perhaps I should just go wiki

it's a minority gov't - no coalitions ... the popular vote doesn't translate necessarily in seats ... wiki for sure will break it down for you if you search 2006 election ...

of the 4 parties that got seats - they got the most - hence the ruling party ... the other thing is that we have an entire province that votes for them ... no other big province votes solely for one party ... so, really, we are being governed by one province ... and it so happens it's where the oil is ... which is why we scuttle all climate change talks ... (notice how i brought it back to topic ...

DriftingByTheStorm

Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’

By Noel Sheppard
November 7, 2007 - 18:58 ET
**********

If the founder of The Weather Channel spoke out strongly against the manmade global warming myth, might media members notice?

We're going to find out the answer to that question soon, for John Coleman wrote an article published at ICECAP Wednesday that should certainly garner attention from press members -- assuming journalism hasn't been completely replaced by propagandist activism, that is.

Coleman marvelously began:

It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in [sic] allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda. Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.

[...]

I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.

In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious.
**********

FAQS & MYTHS About Climate Change

???

he still stands

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’

By Noel Sheppard
November 7, 2007 - 18:58 ET
**********

If the founder of The Weather Channel spoke out strongly against the manmade global warming myth, might media members notice?

We're going to find out the answer to that question soon, for John Coleman wrote an article published at ICECAP Wednesday that should certainly garner attention from press members -- assuming journalism hasn't been completely replaced by propagandist activism, that is.

Coleman marvelously began:

It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in [sic] allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda. Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.

[...]

I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.

In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious.
**********

FAQS & MYTHS About Climate Change

???

"Nonetheless, it is in our civilization's best interest to find ways to eliminate fossil fuels from our livings within the next few generations. But, there is no climatic emergency from our use of them." -- John Coleman

Even the naysayer agrees that we need to eliminate carbon emissions.... so what is your point?

he still stands

A 40 year ambiguous target, with no mid-range benchmarks to achieve, and no specific actions to reach those benchmarks or the end target.

Their minds must have been a-flutter after their decadent meal including -- "Corn stuffed with caviar, winterlily bulb and summer savoury, a special selection of cheeses with lavender honey and caramelised nuts, 'fantasy dessert' with coffee and candied fruits and vegetables"

DriftingByTheStorm

he still stands wrote:

"Nonetheless, it is in our civilization's best interest to find ways to eliminate fossil fuels from our livings within the next few generations. But, there is no climatic emergency from our use of them." -- John Coleman

Even the naysayer agrees that we need to eliminate carbon emissions.... so what is your point?

Well, i don't know too many who would dispute that.
However, the fact remains, one must question why the titans of politics are pushing for this like life hangs in the balance.

What are their true motives?
What are their real intentions?

Is carbon emissions reduction,
and carbon taxation,
simply a scheme for the further transference of wealth,
destruction of local economic control (transference of power),
and the possible reduction of population?

Remember that such drastic changes in carbon emissions means a severe restucturing of industry and transportation. This could pose an undue burden on the global food supply, not to mention the pocket books of humanity.

Given the statements (and evidence) that suggests that "global warming" is NOT a matter of grave peril, one has to question WHAT poses the greater threat of population "destabilization": climate change itself, or the questionable reactionary policies of a global elite?

Derrick

Heineken Helen wrote:

:( how the hell did CANADA end up with a right wing government?

The liberal government got caught in a financial scandal.

polaris

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Given the statements (and evidence) that suggests that "global warming" is NOT a matter of grave peril, one has to question WHAT poses the greater threat of population "destabilization": climate change itself, or the questionable reactionary policies of a global elite?

1. there is no evidence to suggest climate change is not a matter of great peril.

2. the global elite are not doing anything - they have no interest in doing anything ... the impacts of climate change will further cause instability - something the global elite thrive on ...

eyedclaar

Too little too late and nothing ever came out of pretty words with no real intention behind them anyway. When the coasts are flooded don't come bother me in the mountains.

DriftingByTheStorm

polaris wrote:

1. there is no evidence to suggest climate change is not a matter of great peril.

2. the global elite are not doing anything - they have no interest in doing anything ... the impacts of climate change will further cause instability - something the global elite thrive on ...

1. Google "Global Warming Hoax" and tell me you don't see ANY evidence to suggest just that.

Here is just one paltry article on the subject. [I wish i could find the site i posted on here months ago, with graph and chart after chart and graph showing the total disconnect between human fossil fuel consumption and long term weather patterns.]

2. You forget that instability does not become a TOOL of the elite, until it is an instability which they CONTROL! If they could harness the threat of climate change in order to introduce their own controlled legislation ... Agenda 21, carbon taxes, forced infrastructure and population redistribution etc ... THOSE are tools the elite can use!

he still stands

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Well, i don't know too many who would dispute that.
However, the fact remains, one must question why the titans of politics are pushing for this like life hangs in the balance.

They aren't. This is a pie in the sky bullshit 40 year target, w/o any specific remedies to the problem or benchmark targets along the way. Again, nothing was accomplished.

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

What are their true motives?
What are their real intentions?

Is carbon emissions reduction,
and carbon taxation,
simply a scheme for the further transference of wealth,
destruction of local economic control (transference of power),
and the possible reduction of population?

Remember that such drastic changes in carbon emissions means a severe restucturing of industry and transportation. This could pose an undue burden on the global food supply, not to mention the pocket books of humanity.

Given the statements (and evidence) that suggests that "global warming" is NOT a matter of grave peril, one has to question WHAT poses the greater threat of population "destabilization": climate change itself, or the questionable reactionary policies of a global elite?

Well from what I've seen there are one, or maybe a few, "scientists" who usually have connections to right wing propaganda who believe global warming is a scam and thousands of unbiased scientists who believe it is real. Since I don't agree that the global warming scam is a "given" I don't really know hot to respond. But I will agree that we need to always question the motives behind ANY policy decision...

polaris

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

1. Google "Global Warming Hoax" and tell me you don't see ANY evidence to suggest just that.

Here is just one paltry article on the subject. [I wish i could find the site i posted on here months ago, with graph and chart after chart and graph showing the total disconnect between human fossil fuel consumption and long term weather patterns.]

2. You forget that instability does not become a TOOL of the elite, until it is an instability which they CONTROL! If they could harness the threat of climate change in order to introduce their own controlled legislation ... Agenda 21, carbon taxes, forced infrastructure and population redistribution etc ... THOSE are tools the elite can use!

1. All those articles are published by the global elite - there is NO peer-reviewed scientific journal that suggests climate change is not what it is.

2. What are the causes of climate change? Fossil Fuel use (Oil and Gas) - they are founding members of the corporatacracy.

Kel Varnsen

Heineken Helen wrote:

:( how the hell did CANADA end up with a right wing government?

To be fair a right wing Canadian government is a far cry from a right wing US government.

DriftingByTheStorm

polaris wrote:

1. All those articles are published by the global elite - there is NO peer-reviewed scientific journal that suggests climate change is not what it is.

2. What are the causes of climate change? Fossil Fuel use (Oil and Gas) - they are founding members of the corporatacracy.

1. i don't think this was intended, but your contention is a self-referencing truth. Since climate change must necessarily be what it is, it does make statistical sense that scientific journals would not, being empiricaly minded, suggest that something is not what it is.



That pretentious comment aside, i am curious what you mean by "what it is".
What is the current climate situation ... with reference to man?

2. And these issues (1 and 2) really intertwine severely when you examine the ACTUAL "evidence".

Here. From the Solar Center at Stanford University is an article ...
read it, think about co2, and think about the sun.

Now click on the graph.
Okay. Don't look at the THICK lines.
Look at the thin lines that show shorter term average lows and highs.
Notice that as co2 levels make a moderate rise between 1860 and 1960, yet both solar activity and global surface temperatures go DOWN.

Now, what confuses the issue is that co2 levels do indeed go up drasticaly starting around 1960. But notice what was happening with sunspots starting around the mid 1940s! They started going off the chart.

You can't look at that an really say that just because co2 is going up, co2 is the cause.

---

As for your assumption about motives behind scientific distortions alleged by you against the fossil fuel industrialist ...

remember that the targets for co2 reductions dont necessarily mean shit to the bottom line of the "oil men".

Think about this.
Besides the fact that the oil industries are generally owned by the same people as the large banks ...

One of the most desired methods for alleged co2 reduction is going to be global carbon taxes, and global carbon EXCHANGES. Carbon credits will be an exchangeable commodity that will make bankers RICH. Filthy fucking rich.

Beyond that.
The actual tax is going to tax USERS of energy, primarily.
WHO IS THE BENEFICIARY OF THOSE TAXES?
Surely it is the same people!

Finally,
the restriction of carbon emissions, if it ever does occur at the PRODUCTION level, will simply result in an offsetting adjustment in the demand-supply curve. Ie - PRICES will go UP. WAY UP.

I don't think the 'fossil fuel industry" (simply another veil of the wealthiest of the wealthy) is too concerned about this process of co2 regulation.

They are THRILLED by it.
Fucking falling overthemselves, cumdrunk, in love with the notion.

Any delay, perceived delay, or roadblock in this process is likely just the result of infighting over how best to structure the measures, who gets control, who sets the standards, who runs the markets, etc.

How much, if any of the above, makes sense beyond my allegedly conspiracy-riddled brain?

DriftingByTheStorm

Here is Fox News, of all places, reporting on alleged Global Cooling.

Yep.
Wikipedia says this has been bunk since the 1970s.
But this article is from 2008.
Funny shit.

article wrote:

California meteorologist Anthony Watts says the amount of cooling ranges from 65-hundredths of a degree Centigrade to 75-hundreds of a degree.

That is said to be a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. It is reportedly the single fastest temperature change ever recorded — up or down.

now i'm no scientist,
but if that is true,
it is funny.

article again wrote:

Some scientists contend the cooling is the result of reduced solar activity — which they say is a larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases.

polaris

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Edited for space ...

How much, if any of the above, makes sense beyond my allegedly conspiracy-riddled brain?

1. Climate change and its impacts are exactly what all the leading scientists say - caused by man with dire consequences as we are seeing already - the impacts are already here.

2. All one needs to do to understand climate change is caused by man is to study the greenhouse effect. If you believe that the greenhouse effect is in fact real - then you must accept that man is the leading cause of climate change.

As for the oil companies - here in Canada, there is a carbon tax shift proposal. Taxes currently derived from goods and services would be removed and replaced with a carbon tax. I don't see how banks would benefit directly on that. Having said that - if the global elite wanted to manufacture a crisis - why are nations like the US and Canada not playing along?

DriftingByTheStorm

polaris wrote:

if the global elite wanted to manufacture a crisis - why are nations like the US and Canada not playing along?

because North America is in the FIRST global financial sector.
Check it out.

That means the elite think of America alternately as their biggest enemy and as their homebase.

It is a bit paradoxical,
but until they bring it to its knees in a controlled implossion,
America must stand as the controller of all the rest.
Dollar Hegemony is real.
Fading, but real.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

It is a bit paradoxical,
.

to say the least. sounds more like you are trying to shoehorn everything happening today to fit into Alex Jones' world view , no matter how poorly it fits.

DriftingByTheStorm

MrSmith wrote:

to say the least. sounds more like you are trying to shoehorn everything happening today to fit into Alex Jones' world view , no matter how poorly it fits.

You have very few people left in the upper crux of American politics that are still fighting or even concerned about American soverignty, currently.

You have a global group of fat cats whose preeminent concern is the preservation of their own wealth, and the furtherance of their own power structure.

The person who is really trying to "shoehorn" the world to fit their own view, is he who erroneously thinks that it fits in to two neat little opposing dualities.

There is a lot more grey than black or white.
Global politics is complex,
and summing it up in a few sentences probably isn't very indictative.

It does not, however, mean that the assertions i presented aren't a rough approximation of truth.

The elite HAVE infact put North America in their FIRST region of globaly categorized "economic regions".

This is indicative of their preference.
[you can argue this, but you are wrong. North America, Europe, then on down the line, all the way to poor old Africa, who is dead last]

They prefer America, because they have a sizeable amount of control over it via their corporations, lobbyists, and political influence (CFR, Bilderberg, Trilateral ... none of which are fantasy, or jokes) ...

But just because they currently rule the nest from the USA, does NOT mean that they don't have other plans for it outside of its currently crumbling soverign state of pre-eminence.

They would love to (and are working to) put us back in check with the rest of the globe.

The reality is, the global elite don't realy need a supreme nation-state empire anymore.

They area GLOBAL elite.
All they need is a pervasive system that entagles ALL nations.
I don't think we need to go down the road of proving their ambitions of World Government (or more recently, "Global Governance") any more. It is a truth of our times.

Beyond that, they actually DESIRE an equalibrium of power between the industrialized nations. America currently has that equation out of balance, and that imbalance jeopardizes their efforts by insipring revolt against the entire system by the "lower" nations.

It also allows the US, via the nature of its preminent power to escape the full graps of its tentacles, and to cause serious setbacks to their plans.

An example of a setback would be the current infighting that started with the invasion of Iraq, and is continuing with discussions behind the scenes about invading Iran.

Zbigniew Brzezinski has come forward saying that Bush's handling of Iraq has set their goals back by 10 years or more. This self-conflict stems from the problem (perceived by the elite) regarding America's soverign self-interest in maintaining power.

I'm sure some of them saw a need to invade (in both cases, as Iraq, like Iran wanted off the dollar for oil) due to enormous negative pressures that a Euro based oil bourse would have posed on the dollar and on American political hegemony.

But some saw it as folly. A country fated to go the way of the Roman empire, simply delaying the inevitable ... stirring up too much controversy, conflict, and political awakening among the masses to be worth the trouble.

I'm pretty sure, that is where Brzezinski was coming from.
It wasn't some beautiful, pure inner desire for global peace and happy-dappy dreamy bullshit.


I KNOW THAT HAD FUCK-ALL TO DO WITH THE ENVIRONMENT,
I just thought i would address the pervasive, but inaccurate, notion often invoked around here to defend some weak perception of realtity, that the world is somehow wrapped in a little happy left right paradigm, or that simply because something is complex and fraught with contradictions between itself means that it is necessarily not true or valid.

Marxism sure as hell existed.
And it sure as hell was fraugth with both internal and external contradictions.
Life just isn't made up of simplicities.

angelica

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Well, i don't know too many who would dispute that.
However, the fact remains, one must question why the titans of politics are pushing for this like life hangs in the balance.

What are their true motives?
What are their real intentions?

Is carbon emissions reduction,
and carbon taxation,
simply a scheme for the further transference of wealth,
destruction of local economic control (transference of power),
and the possible reduction of population?

Remember that such drastic changes in carbon emissions means a severe restucturing of industry and transportation. This could pose an undue burden on the global food supply, not to mention the pocket books of humanity.

Given the statements (and evidence) that suggests that "global warming" is NOT a matter of grave peril, one has to question WHAT poses the greater threat of population "destabilization": climate change itself, or the questionable reactionary policies of a global elite?

Dude, I totally agree with you. I don't trust this global warming thing, and it's potential abuse, at all.

edit: my concern isn't as much a 'global elite' as a anyone using global warming as a tool to wield/use/abuse power. Which is not to say that people aren't often well-intended. And yet, people, when either unconscious of their power struggles, or very conscious of a need to control and wield inauthentic power...abuse power in any way they can.

I see examples of this with people wielding global warming fear on this board, as a way of "winning". It's human nature. It's rampant. And those capitalizing on and milking this fear is what my concern is with.

angelica

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

The person who is really trying to "shoehorn" the world to fit their own view, is he who erroneously thinks that it fits in to two neat little opposing dualities.

There is a lot more grey than black or white.
Global politics is complex,
and summing it up in a few sentences probably isn't very indictative.

It does not, however, mean that the assertions i presented aren't a rough approximation of truth.

Again, I want to go on record saying I totally agree.

And I know nothing about Alex Jones. I come at this from a completely different view, and see these very same basics as you do.

polaris

uhhh ... again ... it's not hard to comprehend if one wants to learn ...

the greenhouse effect - they teach it in schools so, it can't be that crazy a theory ...