40 year deadline to cut carbon emissions in half!

Heineken Helen · July 2008

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 · July 2008

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 · July 2008

the worst is Canada! ...

Heineken Helen · July 2008

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 · July 2008

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 · July 2008

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 · July 2008

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 · July 2008

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 · July 2008

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 · July 2008

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 · July 2008

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 · July 2008

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 · July 2008

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 · July 2008

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 · July 2008

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 · July 2008

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 · July 2008

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 · July 2008

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 · July 2008

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 · July 2008

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 · July 2008

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.

40 year deadline to cut carbon emissions in half!

Comments

Categories