The Madness of Copenhagen
November 21, 2009 · By Charles Anthony
If you can, read this — probably the single most concise display of comprehensive environmental illness:
«Le Canada devrait s’engager à proposer: une diminution de 25% en cible absolue des émissions de gaz à effet de serre des pays industrialisés par rapport à 1990 d’ici 2020; la nécessité de limiter la hausse des températures de la planète en deçà de 2 °C par rapport aux niveaux de l’ère préindustrielle; un appui aux pays en développement dans leurs efforts de réduction de gaz à effet de serre et d’adaptation aux changements climatiques», dit la motion.
To demand that a government reduces the temperature of the planet alone is enough to warrant commital to an insane asylum for the sake of not only the health of the person demanding it but also for the safety of the rest of the citizens who will be forced to suffer at the consequences of whatever absurd policy will be used to target the impossible.
Anybody who has the power — CORRECTION: Anybody who is so deluded that he thinks he has the power to reduce the planet’s temperature and the moral prerogative to act with said power is dangerous to himself and other people. Only God has the power to reduce the Earth’s temperature. Sheesh.
If Quebeckers and Federal Socialists want to reduce their dependence on oil, they can cut their oil use themselves. There is no excuse for such climate change hysteria. Canadians should ignore the Copenhagen conference on climate change and tell the environmentally ill to fly a kite — in a lightening storm.
You seem to be saying that human activity cannot impact on climate. Is that correct?
I actually agree with Charles’ conclusion, if not his reasoning. If we were to agree with this proposal, it will be impossible to determine with any level of certainty what the temperature would have been had we not taken whatever steps we took.
Thus, any government will always be able to tweak the numbers, use alternative models, or generally fudge things around until they can claim success. Further, it eliminates any accountability for each individual nation.
What we can measure is the total mass of emitted GHGs. We should commit to a target on this metric that should lead to the desired effect on the climate.
On that point, I believe Charles and I will continue to disagree. But at least we can agree that a temperature-based metric will be, at a minimum, uneffective.
Sorry, that should be ineffective, not uneffective. Damn small blackberry keyboard…
I agree with Charles. Not only is it absured to think a government can change the climate. There is no proof humans cause climate change. The same people that said there would be another ice age due to climate change are now saying we will all burn. And what about the ozone holes scare?
Abattoir can you show me any concrete evidence that supports man made climate change?
matt, there is a global warming scandal brewing on the blogosphere about documents that were hacked out of the Hadley CRU, home of the data used to produce Mann’s hockey stick graph so prominent in Gore’s crusade. The emails among the documents seem to indicate that not only was the hockey stick graph produced from manipulated data, but there was a premeditated effort to thwart release of the raw un-manipulated data and to discredit peers who would question the validity of the work resulting from the manipulation of the data.
If these documents are genuine, it’s going to look very bad on the True Beilevers of AGW, and the scientists will have some explaining to do.
H/t Anthony Watts – http://wattsupwiththat.com/
Furthermore, if the hockey stick graph is invalidated, it falsifies the claim that AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is even occurring, and makes me wonder why anyone should be concerned about CO2 emissions in the first place when there are other demonstrably more deadly anthropogenic emissions that we should curtail. This is common sense for all but the True Believers.
Allen I too am a global warming sceptic I have heard about the hockey stick graph scandal. Sadly scandal or not I have witnessed several people cite the UN enviromental release that used Hann’s hockey stick graph a graph that was pulled off of wikipedia. I have even noticed on this site there is a donate to stop global warming with a picture of polar bears. I read an article from a polar bear reasercher (who was banned from preliminary Copenhagen meetings due to his views) who said that polar bear numbers are increasing.
search for Mitchell Taylor there should be several articles on him.
At stake is Billions of dollars from developed countries to be transferred to special projects managed by whom?
What industries and projects stand to gain?
How much funding for more “Junk Science” Research is at stake?
I hope y’all have been following the CRU email/file hacking story. SDA is a good place to start. _http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/
AGW is fraud. Period.
The CRU e-mail’s/file’s are a substantial blow to AGW but will it make a major difference? I dont think so I have been posting articles on facebook (a somewhat random sample of people) that should cause people to question the legitimacy of global warming and it has hardly made an impact. This story will do much to change the minds of a few.
Charles, you seem to be saying that human activity cannot impact on climate. Is that correct?
Matt,
There is lots of evidence for AGW out there in the public domain. Scepticism is generally healthy for science, but at some point it ceases to be constructive and becomes obstructive.
I’ve heard many anti-AGW positions, and they were generally nothing more than ill-informed pseudoscience. We would all do well to ‘consider the source’ when hearing something new.
As for your ozone layer question, I would simply say that you have been misinformed. The Montreal protocol was one of the most effective environmental treaties ever, specifically because it was able to reverse the trend. The ozone layer seems to have stabilized, and may even repair itself in the coming decades.
I think we need an AGW inquiry.
I’ll even concede that the goal to reduce the earth’s temperature is a bit strange when the exact means to do it are unclear. I find these agreements will always have lofty goals without any practicality.