Do as we say, but don't do as we do.

[Crazed Rabbit]

This shows how much they believe in the restrictions they're pushing.

It's about government control - of people, of business. The accursed EPA in the US has just found that CO2 is a pollutant, so now they can heavily regulate it, and us, back to the stone age.

It's the world's grandest lie.

Because of computer models, based on faulty and politicized science, the common man supposed to destroy his way of life. At worst the alarmists promise a slight temperature rise.

CR

[Furunculus]

i don't know about you guys, but i certainly detect a greater skepticism to the 'consensus' than was evident even six months ago. is it just me?

[Beskar]

It is a grand conspiracy by pinko-communist liberal agenda so they control us to the point we have to buy Carbon Credits just to breath. It is my personal right in the Consitution to climb into my Humvee to mow down young children and pump noxtious gases into the atomsphere simply to drive around the corner to the Kiwi-mart for a pint of milk.

What do they think they are, telling me I should use "hydrogen" fuel cells as a car like some limp-wristed pink tie wearing liberal, it is my the almighty given right to decimate the enviroment as I see fit and drive a real mans car while pedestrians choke on my fumes.

Alternative power, ppstfff, who cares about alternative power when I want to be knee deep in crude oil and greased up to my elbows like a real manly man raking in the money with my Oil stock shares and prices skyrocketing. I laugh in your face that apparently the skeptics are heavily funded by Oil tycoons, they are not doing it for the money, they just want to slap your liberal backsides big style so you can cry to your mommy and nannystate.

Don't get me started on those fancydancy 'intellectuals' and all their phds. PHD don't mean nothing other than Pinko-Here-DoctoringReports. All theirs 'theories' and 'experiments' don't mean anything, I have a theory, and that is that we should stick all their theories where the sun don't shine, then the world would be a far better place.

The old joke may become true, we will be taxed for the very air we breathe.

Damn, you beat me to it, I was posting that while you posted yours.

[Furunculus]

using my excellent emotional intelligence*, i've detected a much greater degree of distress in you recently Beskar.

you used to be much 'cooler' with your mild lefty'ism, yet for some reason it has become much more strident and desperate of late, why is this?

















* in fact i have none, i'm frequently told i need to at least try and get in touch with my feminine side, and recognise that i am largely incapable of empathising.

[Beskar]

using my excellent emotional intelligence*, i've detected a much greater degree of distress in you recently Beskar.

I started to agree with Thatcher and my self-denial is tearing me apart. Nah, the post was just highly sarcastic and it was trying to paint the picture that maybe majority of the arguments of Climate Skepticism just reek of politicalisation and some really crude views.

While there could be debates to the effects and the figures, there are major things that need to occur anyway, regardless, so it doesn't even bother me that much. The fact is, we are going to run out of Oil, so switching to alternative sources even now would be a good idea, it would also keep oil prices lower, due to lower demand.

Also, through various methods and ways, alternative methods would also bring in independent energy security to various nations. I am not sure about you Furunculus at times, but I bet you agree that you don't want Russia dominating the energy supply of Europe and the British Isles. (or the Middle East being the supplier of our energy needs)

Recycling is also another issue, through recycling, we could again reuse vast amounts of resources which otherwise would end up in the bottom of the ocean or in a hole in the ground, and for many materials, recycling is also far cheaper than getting it from new. There are also various safety hazards and other things related to landfill sites, and other various issues which could go on for pages, but I think we can agree here.

There are a lot of issues and things under the whole Global Enviroment agenda which really do need to be done, or really considered to be done. While there are some things I disagree with (such as Carbon Credits) and other issues, they are pretty much second priority compared to what I just listed which would obviously deal with those secondary issues at the same time.

Majority of angry replies about Global Skepticism, goes into many issues such as "Change", people dislike it, even if it is for the better. Then there are narrow-minded views as people cannot conceptualise the problems, thus they just simply dismiss it. Then there is the "we have an axe to grind" who simply just grinds axes on the next thing. Then there are the obviously millionaire and billionaire examples where the whole Climate Change issue means they lose money from their Oligarch oil investments.

As for any personal distress, might be subconsciously venting some distress over deadlines.

[Furunculus]

1. While there could be debates to the effects and the figures, there are major things that need to occur anyway, regardless, so it doesn't even bother me that much. The fact is, we are going to run out of Oil, so switching to alternative sources even now would be a good idea, it would also keep oil prices lower, due to lower demand.

2. Also, through various methods and ways, alternative methods would also bring in independent energy security to various nations. I am not sure about you Furunculus at times, but I bet you agree that you don't want Russia dominating the energy supply of Europe and the British Isles. (or the Middle East being the supplier of our energy needs)

3. Recycling is also another issue, through recycling, we could again reuse vast amounts of resources which otherwise would end up in the bottom of the ocean or in a hole in the ground, and for many materials, recycling is also far cheaper than getting it from new. There are also various safety hazards and other things related to landfill sites, and other various issues which could go on for pages, but I think we can agree here.

4. There are a lot of issues and things under the whole Global Enviroment agenda which really do need to be done, or really considered to be done. While there are some things I disagree with (such as Carbon Credits) and other issues, they are pretty much second priority compared to what I just listed which would obviously deal with those secondary issues at the same time.

5. Majority of angry replies about Global Skepticism, goes into many issues such as "Change", people dislike it, even if it is for the better. Then there are narrow-minded views as people cannot conceptualise the problems, thus they just simply dismiss it. Then there is the "we have an axe to grind" who simply just grinds axes on the next thing. Then there are the obviously millionaire and billionaire examples where the whole Climate Change issue means they lose money from their Oligarch oil investments.

6. Though you miss out where conservative party policy is to oppress the masses, while left-wing policy is liberating them, or distributing wealth to help all in the greater good. But those details seem to go unmentioned.


As for any personal distress, might be subconsciously venting some distress over deadlines.

1. agreed.
2. very much agreed.
3. i know, i helped start a recycling technology company valued by Grant Thorntons at £1.7m, with the aim of empowering local communities by source separated segregation of recycling which would allow local reprocessing into raw materials for manufacture, thus keeping the value of the material within the community. oh i know all about it.
4. as i have already said on several occasions; there are lots of green things i agree with, which is a separate matter for my general disdain for the politically motivated greens
5. i recognise that such people exist, in much the same way that i believe that the rabid element of the green movement are the inadequates of the lefty movement who need a cause to maintain a sense of self-worth, and thus needed to reinvent themselves when their previous cause failed in order to avoid a rapid onset on suicidal depression.
6. lol, oppress the masses? you realise that the current conservative party is an amalgam of the old tories, and the libertarian rump of the whigs? free-to-be-a-slave, or a slave-to-freedom, i know which i would rather be.

good luck

[Hosakawa Tito]

Might I suggest, gotomeeting.com . Save the taxpayer's money & reduce their carbon foot print.

[Kralizec]

i don't know about you guys, but i certainly detect a greater skepticism to the 'consensus' than was evident even six months ago. is it just me?

I'm just as unsure about global warming as I was 6 months ago. I just get riled up when politicians do something that's mostly symbolic in nature and present it as evidence that they're working hard on it. But on the other hand, this conference will definitely show that the world leaders are absolutely determined to set non-binding goals for themselves that will only not-bind the successors to their respective offices

[drone]

It's about government control - of people, of business. The accursed EPA in the US has just found that CO2 is a pollutant, so now they can heavily regulate it, and us, back to the stone age.

I can finally pollute just by sitting on my couch, hooray! I was getting tired of having to burn plastic stuff in my backyard.

The old joke may become true, we will be taxed for the very air we breathe.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The amount of extra pollution from their jets and limo's and such is tiny compared to the proposals they will be discussing. I don't think it will be significant.

So the only problem is if they are the "every little bit helps, don't wash your dishes before putting them in the dishwasher, use scissors instead of a lawnmower, be more green everyday" types.

[Meneldil]

Because of computer models, based on faulty and politicized science, the common man supposed to destroy his way of life. At worst the alarmists promise a slight temperature rise.

CR

Holy crap, having a bin for recyclables, driving an electric car and not letting all lights turned on at night is so going to destroy my way of life.

In other news, cry me a river

[Beskar]

Holy crap, having a bin for recyclables, driving an electric car and not letting all lights turned on at night is so going to destroy my way of life.

In other news, cry me a river

It is unfortunately true.

Perhaps it is the unbridled excessives of the society of the past decade are too much to give up on.

What you forgot to mention, Global Warming or not, we do need to start recycling, less reliance on fossil fuels and energy efficiency anyway. So sorry Rabbit, you have to give it up regardless.


That pretty sums up my position, I don't really care enough about Global Warming get to all hurt about it, as the majority of the changes we have to do anyway and even Furunculus who comments as being on the right agreed with me that they had to be done. The ball is out there with Global Warming, and if I was in government, I would be more focused on doing the big changes we need to do anyway, and perhaps have the geoengineering back-up which Louis posted from the telegraph if it turns out it is getting bad afterall, even after these changes have been done.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Beskar, you do seem bitter lately.

[Beskar]

Beskar, you do seem bitter lately.

I will decrease my posting significally for a while then (probably until the weekend at least). Not as a rage-quit, as I am understress and if this is influencing my behaviour too much in a negative light, it is best I become temporarily less-active.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Smoking gun of the Denial Industry uncovered!

1 The public persuasion campaign

In 1991 the Western Fuels Association, National Coal Association and Edison Electric Institute set up a group called the Information Council for the Environment (Ice). Its founding documents were leaked. The text has been made available online by the scientist Naomi Oreskes. The strategy was spelt out in a document produced by the Western Fuels Association: to "reposition global warming as theory (not fact)".


Ice was given $510,000 to test its messages in key markets, all of which happened to be the homes of members of the energy and commerce or ways and means committees of the US House of Representatives. The purpose was to "demonstrate that a consumer-based media awareness program can positively change the opinions of a selected population regarding the validity of global warming." If it worked, Ice would "implement program nationwide".
It identified "two possible target audiences": "Target 1: Older, less educated males". These people, Ice said, would be receptive to "messages describing the motivations and vested interests of people currently making pronouncements on global warming – for example, the statement that some members of the media scare the public about global warming to increase their audience and their influence … "


"Target 2: younger, lower-income women" … "These women are more receptive ... to factual information concerning the evidence for global warming. They are likely to be "green" consumers, believe the earth is warming, and to think the problem is serious. However, they are also likely to soften their support for federal legislation after hearing new information …"
Ice discovered that "members of the public feel more confident expressing opinions on others' motivations and tactics than they do expressing opinions of scientific issues." Here are some of the messages it tested:


"Some say the earth is warming. Some also said the earth was flat."
"Who told you the earth was warming … Chicken Little?"
"How much are you willing to pay to solve a problem that may not exist?"*
These messages must have worked, because they were later used by Ice in a wider media campaign.


* James Hoggan and Richard Littlemore, 2009. Climate Cover-Up. Greystone Books, Vancouver.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Chicken little did tell me the earth was warming.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Holy crap, having a bin for recyclables, driving an electric car and not letting all lights turned on at night is so going to destroy my way of life.

In other news, cry me a river

I do all of those things (well, a 50 mpg vehicle, not an electric car).

Unsurprisingly, that isn't enough.

What you forgot to mention, Global Warming or not, we do need to start recycling, less reliance on fossil fuels and energy efficiency anyway. So sorry Rabbit, you have to give it up regardless.

I'll start relying less on fossil fuels as they become scarcer, and not before. And I'm completely happy with my current energy efficiency.

Also; recycling isn't efficient; why do you think you have to pay for them to take the recycling away? Because it costs more energy to recycle than to gather new resources.

CR

[ajaxfetish]

Also; recycling isn't efficient; why do you think you have to pay for them to take the recycling away? Because it costs more energy to recycle than to gather new resources.

CR

I'm fairly sure that depends on the materials in question. As I understand it, for some materials, especially aluminum, recycling is cheaper than gathering new resources. Of course, for other materials, it's more expensive.

Ajax

[Beskar]

Also; recycling isn't efficient; why do you think you have to pay for them to take the recycling away? Because it costs more energy to recycle than to gather new resources.

CR

No it doesn't.*

Aluminum costs 5% when recycling compared to from new.
Plastics costs around 30% when recycled compared to from new.
Paper costs 60% compared to from new.

There are other resources, especially the rarer ones, but there are also some areas where it is more ecologically valid to recycle, even though it is not profitible, such as batteries/computers/fridges containing toxic materials and acids which cause damage the environment and its wildlife.

There are also problems related to landfill sites, you cannot keep dumping rubbishing into the ground, because of many reasons, number one is the huge amount of methane that gets produced which can cause explosions.

There are many reasons to recycle, not all of them include profit, then again if we lived only in the name of profit, we would never have children.

As for enviromental concerns, you have to remember this. You do not inherit from your ancestors, you only borrow from you children.

*Yes, there are some resources that are currently cheaper to get new from other countries. Which also argubly, we don't have ourselves.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Aluminum is an exception. I am not convinced by your percentages, Beskar. Why do people have to pay for recycling services at all if paper and plastic are cheap to recycle?

There are also problems related to landfill sites, you cannot keep dumping rubbishing into the ground, because of many reasons, number one is the huge amount of methane that gets produced which can cause explosions.

Or, it can be gathered up and used as a power source. Which has already been done, by the way.

CR

[Beskar]

Aluminum is an exception. I am not convinced by your percentages, Beskar. Why do people have to pay for recycling services at all if paper and plastic are cheap to recycle?

We don't pay for recycling services, and i always lead to believe that you always got paid if anything.

I am fairly saw I seen American cartoons, even the Simpsons where they collect stuff for recycling and they got paid for doing so.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Over here nobody (either way) pays for the recycling per-se; everybody pays for the service that is collecting the waste and disposing of it somehow... though.

Perhaps I am on a different planet?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

We don't pay for recycling services, and i always lead to believe that you always got paid if anything.

I am fairly saw I seen American cartoons, even the Simpsons where they collect stuff for recycling and they got paid for doing so.

Garbage men are volunteers?

You can get money for aluminum cans, and some states sponsor the buyback of glass bottles.

[Furunculus]

No it doesn't.*

Aluminum costs 5% when recycling compared to from new.
Plastics costs around 30% when recycled compared to from new.
Paper costs 60% compared to from new.

There are other resources, especially the rarer ones, but there are also some areas where it is more ecologically valid to recycle, even though it is not profitible, such as batteries/computers/fridges containing toxic materials and acids which cause damage the environment and its wildlife.

There are also problems related to landfill sites, you cannot keep dumping rubbishing into the ground, because of many reasons, number one is the huge amount of methane that gets produced which can cause explosions.

There are many reasons to recycle, not all of them include profit, then again if we lived only in the name of profit, we would never have children.

As for enviromental concerns, you have to remember this. You do not inherit from your ancestors, you only borrow from you children.

*Yes, there are some resources that are currently cheaper to get new from other countries. Which also argubly, we don't have ourselves.

speaking as someone who ran a recycling and reprocessing company, and operated a household source segregated recycling scheme; it all depends on the level of contamination.

mixed paper products contaminated with food waste cannot be given away, a 40ft container would be turned away from shotton is more than a few bits of brown card were found in office paper recycling.
white office paper without contamination can be worth £80/tonne.

mixed glass used to be worth about £15/tonne
colour separated cullet varies from £30 to £60 depending on the colour, because while we use a lot of green glass such as wine and beer bottles, we don't actually produce it, whereas clear glass is something we produce a tonne of.

mixed plastics (of both type and form) is worth very little, however some plastics such a PET can be worth as much as £800/tonne when uncontaminated, cleaned, and re-pelleted.

[Meneldil]

I do all of those things (well, a 50 mpg vehicle, not an electric car).

Unsurprisingly, that isn't enough.



I'll start relying less on fossil fuels as they become scarcer, and not before. And I'm completely happy with my current energy efficiency.

Also; recycling isn't efficient; why do you think you have to pay for them to take the recycling away? Because it costs more energy to recycle than to gather new resources.

CR

Then I guess you surely have a way to explain why the average American (and there, I add Canadian or Australian so I don't sound like an american-hater) produces 3 times more carbon than the average French and twice more than the average German.

Looks like your energy efficiency is terribad actually :-(

Edit: For the sources, go here. Yeah yeah, they are envo's nutjobs greeno terrorists.

Edit2: And I don't pay anyone to take the recycling away. Never had, never will.

If it was just that,then no problem. But when you regulate carbon and add more and more taxes on industries to produce products that we as customers consume, then the cost gets past down to the customer. This will cause the price of energy, food, housing, and just about anything else we spend money on to go up. Its basic economics, but i guess in the age of Obama, basic economics means nothing when they believe the way to get out of debt is to spend more money that doesn't exist. And you know who this will hurt the most? The poor. the poor who you lefties constantly act like you are the sheppards of mercy for.

Companies try to rip the consummer off as much as possible anyway? Why don't you rant about that for a change?

And I am no leftie but thanks anyway. Maybe some day the american right will get its head off its bum and actually realizes that all people who care about global warming aren't greeno's nutjobs. Crazy **** I know, but many people on the right also think global warming is an important issue.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Then I guess you surely have a way to explain why the average American (and there, I add Canadian or Australian so I don't sound like an american-hater) produces 3 times more carbon than the average French and twice more than the average German.

Larger territory with it being impractical to build a large train network and more extreme climates come to mind. Therefore on heating, cooling, and transport alone those groups need to spend more.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Larger territory with it being impractical to build a large train network and more extreme climates come to mind. Therefore on heating, cooling, and transport alone those groups need to spend more.

Canada, Oz and the US emit triple the amount of CO2 of Sweden, which is fairly cold and large too. Triple the amount of very environmentally conscious New Zealand too.

Double that of icy and empty Norway too, where oil flows free of charge from the tap.

Political will is the overriding reason.



Edit: My oh my, look at this list of Co2 emission per capita by US state:

Texas 28.38
California 11.07

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...xide_emissions

Not size, climate or transport are decisive. The political will is decisive. Blue states are on a European / New Zealand level. The more red a state, the more greenhouse gases. Reaching a level of emissions resembling erm...well nothing comparable to anything on this planet actually. Maybe Venus. Where it is 600 degrees owing to runaway greenhouse effects.

[Louis VI the Fat]

And the amount of CO2 compared by GDP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...xide_emissions

The US and Australia are somewhere down below in between Malawi and the People's Democratic Republic of Laos.

Considering the effects of pollution are felt globally, with financial consequences too, in effect the world is subsidising American products.

Note where Japan, Germany, Britain and all the other economical powerhouses of this world are. Somewhere near the top, together with the rest of the industrialised world. So there is no economical penalty for being energy efficient. It will not ruin your economy.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Canada, Oz and the US emit triple the amount of CO2 of Sweden, which is fairly cold and large too. Triple the amount of very environmentally conscious New Zealand too.

Double that of icy and empty Norway too, where oil flows free of charge from the tap.

Political will is the overriding reason.



Edit: My oh my, look at this list of Co2 emission per capita by US state:

Texas 28.38
California 11.07

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...xide_emissions

Not size, climate or transport are decisive. The political will is decisive. Blue states are on a European / New Zealand level. The more red a state, the more greenhouse gases. Reaching a level of emissions resembling erm...well nothing comparable to anything on this planet actually. Maybe Venus. Where it is 600 degrees owing to runaway greenhouse effects.

More BS. Idaho has a lower per capita than California. And venus is hot BECAUSE ITS CLOSER TO THE SUN.

I don't want to pay more for anything to reduce CO2 emissions. The US has more emissions because it's larger, has more people spread out over a much bigger area, and we're not about to idiotically cripple our industry to stop CO2 from being emitted.

Considering the effects of pollution are felt globally, with financial consequences too, in effect the world is subsidising American products.

I guess that shows who the smart ones are.

CR

[Lemur]

My oh my, look at this list of Co2 emission per capita by US state:

Texas 28.38
California 11.07

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...xide_emissions

Now that is an interesting chart, and you're quite right, the per capita emissions are the correct way to read it. Totals are much less instructuve. For instance, what the heck is wrong with Indiana at 36.43? Wyoming and Montana I'm willing to give a pass, and West Virginia makes sense, what with them being the coal capitol of the world. But what the heck is Indiana's excuse?