Durban Climate Change Conference 2011

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
We already mentioned that natural factors can influence climate change.

Can? Natural factors do more than influence as PROVEN beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Makes you wonder why "Stop Global Warming" became "Stop Climate Change". How arrogant for some to believe we mere mortals can stop the climate from changing for better or worse.

Even more arrogant to think that buying carbon credits will stop the climate from changing.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,858
14,425
113
Low Earth Orbit
Can? Natural factors do more than influence as PROVEN beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Makes you wonder why "Stop Global Warming" became "Stop Climate Change". How arrogant for some to believe we mere mortals can stop the climate from changing for better or worse.

Even more arrogant to think that buying carbon credits will stop the climate from changing.

They need the money for more pillows.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Oh really? We are paying more solely because of man made climate change theory. Were you born last decade?

Do you know anything about your state's Renewable Portfolio Standard? The goal is to reduce emissions. I wasn't born last decade, but your state's RPS requirements came into effect in 2002.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
How arrogant for some to believe we mere mortals can stop the climate from changing for better or worse.

How arrogant some humans are to think we can actually stop climate change.

He's stuck in a loop MF. You could show him the lab experiments that establish carbon dioxide as a infrared absorber. You could show him the absorption spectra of greenhouse gases. You could show him the satellite measurements of the incoming and out-going solar radiation, and relate that to the absorption spectra of the greenhouse gases. You could show him the space-born measurement of the net radiative flux at the top of the atmosphere, and even show him the papers where physicists worked out numerically before the satellites were even up, how much energy should be absorbed. You could show him the fingerprinting studies that relate the climate changes we're experiencing mechanistically to the enhanced greenhouse effect. You could show him the measurements of the isotope fraction of carbon dioxide and relate that to historical accounting of fossil fuels. You could even show him the decrease in oxygen in our atmosphere as combustion of fuels continues to lock up oxygen.

You could show him all the data in the world, and it wouldn't matter. He's just loop back to some other failed argument about the physics, and perhaps even offer you his observations of tidal changes.

Some might even call it arrogant.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Darkbeaver should be gagged that scientists already agree that climate change is linked to cosmic rays.



So?

Both these posts are perfect examples of how this issue is misunderstood by a lot of people.

We already mentioned that natural factors can influence climate change.

They agree that climate change is linked to cosmic rays because they cannot and could not convince even someone like you that it was not. Here's the pearl earths climate change is ninety nine percent the product of cosmic climate change. That's right climate change neither begins nor ends at earths borders.

This one sentence from you indicates perfectly the quality of your thinking on this subject.

"We already mentioned that natural factors can influence climate change."

Please list the principal synthetic factors you attribute to climate change? insert smiley

 
Last edited:

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
After Durban: We must pull the emergency brake before the 1 per cent drive us off the cliff

On behalf of Canada, Environment Minister Peter Kent recently spent several days in Durban at the UN climate talks treating the global community like, well, **** -- disrespecting her, ignoring her wishes and just generally displaying rude and selfish behaviour.

But Minister Kent did not have the guts to break up with the global community face to face in Durban. So he waited until he landed back home in Ottawa before officially announcing that Canada was dumping the Kyoto Protocol, making us the first country to ratify the agreement to abandon what is -- for all its flaws and shortcomings -- the only legally binding international climate treaty in existence.

Ironically Peter Kent, years ago when he was a respected CBC TV journalist, had narrated and helped produce a groundbreaking documentary on global warming way back in 1984.

From 1984 to 2011 -- that's 27 lost years. Twenty-seven years of failure to do what must be done. In 1984, Kent's documentary inquired about a potential ban on fossil fuels, or a 300 per cent tax on carbon dioxide emissions.

But nothing like this type of serious, drastic action ever happened. And that's because the past three decades of the climate crisis have coincided with three decades of neo-liberal politics and economics. The market came before society; money came before science, the environment, reason and even morality.

The result of the 2011 Durban climate talks is that the big polluters have given themselves a few more years to fiddle while the world burns. They spin this by telling us that at Durban they agreed to a "roadmap" to a future agreement.

But the map of the road agreed to at Durban leads only one place for humanity -- off the cliff.

In the lead-up to Durban, new evidence emerged about just how quickly we are speeding towards the edge:

- In November, the International Energy Agency reported that the world was headed for irreversible climate change in five years, unless we immediately cease creating new oil and gas infrastructure.

- Then, at the beginning of this month the Global Carbon Report revealed that global emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning jumped by the largest amount on record last year.

Then, on Monday, as the world reeled from Canada's irresponsible decision to pull out of Kyoto, there came a new report that suggested it may already be too late to stop our collective drive off the cliff. The story ran in the UK Independent. It read, in part:

Dramatic and unprecedented plumes of methane -- a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide -- have been seen bubbling to the surface of the Arctic Ocean by scientists undertaking an extensive survey of the region.

The scale and volume of the methane release has astonished the head of the Russian research team who has been surveying the seabed of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf off northern Russia for nearly 20 years.

Igor Semiletov, of the Far Eastern branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, said that he has never before witnessed the scale and force of the methane being released from beneath the Arctic seabed.

"Earlier we found torch-like structures like this but they were only tens of metres in diameter. This is the first time that we've found continuous, powerful and impressive seeping structures, more than 1,000 metres in diameter…

Scientists estimate that there are hundreds of millions of tonnes of methane gas locked away beneath the Arctic permafrost, which extends from the mainland into the seabed of the relatively shallow sea of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf. One of the greatest fears is that with the disappearance of the Arctic sea-ice in summer, and rapidly rising temperatures across the entire region, which are already melting the Siberian permafrost, the trapped methane could be suddenly released into the atmosphere leading to rapid and severe climate change.

Reading this news report hit me hard.

My mind raced back 15 years, to when I was sitting in a first-year environmental science class at the University of Victoria, riveted as the professor explained the theory of the potential for runaway climate change. The theory is simple but horrifying: that the initial effects of warming -- melting polar ice and permafrost, for example -- will set off "positive feedback loop" effects like the release of stores of methane gas that in turn cause additional warming. Once a certain tipping point is reached -- and the science tells us this is likely somewhere in the neighbourhood of two degrees Celsius of warming -- there will be no possibility of curtailing or reversing the climate change.

Catastrophic climate change will go from theory to reality.

The new findings of massive Arctic methane plumes are perhaps the most startling warnings yet that runaway processes may already have been set into motion. It's the latest indication that we are hurtling towards the cliff. If and when we go over, it won't just result in massive loss of life and dislocation for us humans -- we will also take millions of species over the cliff with us.

This is where the neo-liberal, capitalist joy ride has taken us. Heading over the edge. Only an unprecedented collective mobilization and effort can save us.

It feels like it's now or never. And the once unthinkable thought is becoming the unavoidable thought: it may already be too late.

I'm tempted to suggest that the 1984 Peter Kent would tell the present-day Peter Kent to go to hell. But maybe Kent's just been a vacuous opportunist all along and only the words on the teleprompter have changed. And, secondly, this is much, much bigger than Mr. Kent and the rest of the sock-puppets and salesmen for the tar sands and the rest of Big Oil.

This is now about political power. Forget speaking truth to power. We are going to need to take power, and transform power. It's an almost unbelievable challenge in front of us, especially the younger generations.

Those of us who grew up in the neo-liberal years were told again and again that politics was the art of the possible, but now we face a situation where we must do the impossible.

Walter Benjamin once wrote: "Perhaps revolutions are not the train ride, but the human race grabbing for the emergency brake." Pulling that emergency brake today will require a global movement like we have never seen before.

We are going to need a revolution. An energy revolution. A social revolution. And a revolution in international relations -- waging war on climate change, instead of war on countries with the misfortunate of sitting on top of oil and other coveted resources.

To achieve all this we are going to need to summon an unprecedented collective will to take back the public sphere, including the media, and we will have to re-imagine our democracy, our cities, our societies, and our daily lives.

But our first task is clear: Those who have driven us to this perilous point -- the 1 per cent, the rich, selfish, shortsighted, uncultured and ignorant ruling class of our times -- must be removed from behind the wheel once and for all. (And have their keys taken away, too, for good measure.)

System change, not climate change -- this is indeed our only option left.


After Durban: We must pull the emergency brake before the 1 per cent drive us off the cliff | rabble.ca
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
You get offended when people rightly call you a conspiracy theorist, then you pull out a conspiracy vid.

*sigh*

It's a shame.

Ya coulda been someone kid!
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
You get offended when people rightly call you a conspiracy theorist, then you pull out a conspiracy vid.

*sigh*

It's a shame.

Ya coulda been someone kid!


You think he actually believes that!
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
Can? Natural factors do more than influence as PROVEN beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Makes you wonder why "Stop Global Warming" became "Stop Climate Change". How arrogant for some to believe we mere mortals can stop the climate from changing for better or worse.

Even more arrogant to think that buying carbon credits will stop the climate from changing.

Trees, trees, and more trees...


Notes from the Science Desk: Dramatic ecological changes ahead, courtesy of man-made greenhouse gases

Researchers at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and Caltech are painting a dramatic portrait of how Earth's ecosystems are likely to respond to human-induced climate change over the next few centuries.

By 2100, nearly half of the the plant communities covering Earth's land mass will be modified - with nearly 40 percent morphing into another type altogether (e.g., forest to tundra).

The study used computer modeling to project likely reactions to rising levels of human-produced greenhouse gases over the next 300 years.

The projected stress will also mean increased competition for Earth's fauna, who will face "significant" species turnover and have to adapt to the fact that much of Earth's land will undergo at least a 30 percent change in plant cover.

That could well mean relocation, researchers say.

The study also predicts climate change will "disrupt the balance between interdependent and often endangered plant and animal species, reduce biodiversity and adversely affect Earth's water, energy, carbon and other element cycles."

In particular, "hotspots" projected to have the most species turnover include parts of the Himalayas and the Tibetan Plateau, eastern Equatorial Africa, Madagascar, the Mediterranean region, southern South America and North America's Great Lakes and Great Plains areas.

Results of the new study are published in the journal Climate Change.

Notes from the Science Desk: Dramatic ecological changes ahead, courtesy of man-made greenhouse gases - SGVTribune.com
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
Might any of these dramatic changes involve you refraining from posting this partisan crap?

What partisan crap?

You mean CPC partisan crap?

Canada’s message: The world and its climate be damned

So what that Canada withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol.

Kyoto died long ago. Most of the countries that ratified Kyoto, starting with Canada, failed to meet their greenhouse-gas reduction targets. Big polluters – the U.S., China and India – didn’t accept targets.

At the Durban climate-change conference, Canada got paddled by other countries. But Canada’s reputation has been trashed so often, and with such evident good reason, what’s one more blow?

Canada mocked its own greenhouse-gas reduction targets before, and it’s mocking them again. The Harper government has a target of a 17-per-cent reduction from 2005 by 2020. The Environment Department’s own figures, released in July, showed that emissions have risen by 7 per cent since the Conservatives took office.

No one – not senior civil servants, not foreign diplomats, not academics, not even people in the oil and gas industry – believes Canada will bring down its emissions by 24 per cent (17 per cent plus 7 per cent) in the next eight years. Canada struts on the world stage, naked as a newt, and can’t fool those who know what’s really going on.

It’s easy to mock Kyoto. It failed to halt the upward surge in emissions for many reasons, the most important being that global warming represents the classic example of the tragedy of the commons. That tragedy – well-known to students of human psychology, international relations and economics – means that, when all degrade something held in common, the temptation exists for none to accept responsibility. Every contributor to the degradation finds reasons for inaction.

It’s said, for example, that since Canada “only” contributes 2 per cent of total emissions (while being among the largest per capita emitters), it should really do very little. Ponder that argument. Has it ever been seriously advanced – in war or peace – that Canada isn’t doing its part in world affairs? Did Canada say in two world wars, “Sorry, since we can’t be the decisive actor alone, we’ll take a pass”? Should Canada refuse to give foreign aid because its aid alone can’t eliminate poverty? Should Canada withdraw from a multitude of international institutions because it’s smaller than other member countries and thus can’t do much by itself?


To put the argument this way is to see how false it rings against our traditions of responsible international participation.

This is akin to the pernicious folly of the “ethical oil” argument now embraced by the Harper government (and the oil industry, of course) to justify doing little to reduce emissions from the oil in the tar sands.

In secular philosophy and organized religion, ethics has been about defining and pursuing the notion of the “good.” This “good” is usually set as an optimum, never attained but always kept as a goal. Ethics is not about claiming virtue because behaviour is better than the worst possible behaviour, but rather it’s measured against the nominal sense of the “good.”

The argument that Canada’s oil comes from a more virtuous place than Libya under Moammar Gadhafi or Venezuela under Hugo Chavez would be like saying Canada’s human-rights records is “ethical” because it is better than North Korea’s, or our economy is “ethical” because it’s fairer and more productive than Zimbabwe’s.


The 2-per-cent and “ethical” oil arguments, therefore, represent perversions of principles on which to base international participation. They insult Canada’s history and traditions, but they play exceptionally well with a certain segment of the Canadian public.

According to a recent international poll, Canada has the highest number of citizens (22 per cent) of any economically advanced country who deny that human activity causes global warming. We can fairly presume the vast majority of this 22 per cent are in what we might loosely call the conservative world in Canada. They read the anti-global-warming newspapers and commentators, and they rely on the handful of academics who debunk global warming.

The poll numbers suggest that about half of Stephen Harper’s supporters are climate-change deniers and skeptics. His government pays heed to this core, the world and its climate be damned.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/jeffrey-simpson/canadas-message-the-world-and-its-climate-be-damned/article2274503/?utm_medium=Feeds%3A%20RSS%2FAtom&utm_source=Politics&utm_content=2274503
 
Last edited:

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Yup.. We all know how well 'peer review' worked out last time.

It works better than the alternative. Maybe you have the luxury of working with perfect systems, for the rest of us living in reality however we have to make do with what we have and what works best.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,858
14,425
113
Low Earth Orbit
If climate scientists had to spend time in the pokey for being sloppy or bull**** like resource geologists and our peers potentially can, climate data accuracy would be too tight to deny.