Hopenhaguen.org UN Climate Change Conference [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Hopenhaguen.org UN Climate Change Conference

Jarl_02
11-25-2009, 10:48 PM
http://www.hopenhagen.org/sites/all/themes/hopenhagen/design/images/badges/black250x250.jpg

http://www.hopenhaguen.org

Hopenhagen is a movement, a moment and a chance at a new beginning. The hope that in Copenhagen this December – during the United Nations Climate Change Conference – we can build a better future for our planet and a more sustainable way of life. It is the hope that we can create a global community that will lead our leaders into making the right decisions. The promise that by solving our environmental crisis, we can solve our economic crisis at the same time.


This website has a lot of information about the COP15 and about the topic in general.

I suggest everybody to enter this website, I personally don't think people has really understood the problem that we're facing the climate change. It's something extremetely important and critical and we all should be taking action against it.

I'd like everybody to share tips, websites, informations, advices, answers about this topic.

I know it is said a lot everywhere, but if we all do try, we can change this whole situation.

buddyholly
11-26-2009, 04:00 AM
As we have seen over the last couple of days, many of the scientists who make lots of money promoting climate change have been sending each other emails discussing how to block publication of scientific papers that have ''non-welcome'' results. Also an email that claims the lack of warming over the last decade is a huge blow to their efforts because the temperature trends are not obeying their predictions.

As the promoters of climate change continue to be shown as less than scientifically ethical, I guess the question is why so many people are willing to overlook every bump in the road.

Is the role of solar activity being discussed in Copenhagen or is the sun's natural behaviour being dismissed by the Gore fanatics?

And if the Gore clan is as slapdash in getting its facts straight as you appear to be, then all their data must be suspect.

Stensland
11-26-2009, 05:50 PM
who do you think is pushing the climate agenda, buddyholly? i still have a hard time figuring out who's financing those guys as apparently they don't have any money and - as we all know - money is the main factor when it comes to pushing an agenda in the media. the guys who want to diminish the pro-climate change topics are fully equipped: nuclear energy, oil, other fossil fuels etc. have enormous sums to boycott any change whatsoever. the solar industry and the likes have hardly any money though.

so who's doing it? who's behind all the stuff you made out to be true? i'm serious about it, this isn't meant to be a lakonic way of going about you general mindset. i just don't get the scenario you're describing in every single thread related to climate change.

who the eff is paying the vast majority of scientists that say climate change is the biggest issue we're facing today?

JolánGagó
11-26-2009, 06:11 PM
who cares about this shit, it's all a fraud, climate have changed back and forth in countless occasions since Earth exists and it will do so many times more in spite of all UN assemblies and Goresque fakery in the world.

Henry Chinaski
11-26-2009, 06:17 PM
yeah basically what rainer said. the overwhelming majority of scientists seem to be on the opposite side to the big money.

Zirconek
11-26-2009, 09:03 PM
who cares about this shit, it's all a fraud, climate have changed back and forth in countless occasions since Earth exists and it will do so many times more in spite of all UN assemblies and Goresque fakery in the world.

Plain wrong, very poor comment. Several things are to be considered in recent climate changes surveys, like the scale, data (direct and indirect), new factors introduced by society that affect the climate and others. Human activity is changing the global and local climates and its consequences are being predicted as very severe. Climate change is not a theory or possibilty anymore, it's a fact according to scientific community.

Stensland
11-26-2009, 09:07 PM
sometimes i wonder why i put jolan gago on my ignore list some time ago as he's certainly fairly entertaining (all doofuses are, plus bilbo ain't on it and he's competing in gago's league). but then he reminds me very effectively. thanks for quoting him. :D

Tommy_Vercetti
11-26-2009, 10:18 PM
Zirconek. Don't forget it was many from that same "scientific community" who were holding marches to warn about a coming Ice Age only a few decades ago. People should keep in mind how much of this has to do with certain people who want publicity like Al Gore, who's past crusades never took over the Hollywood tea parties like global warming.

out_here_grindin
11-26-2009, 10:41 PM
Global warming is something I will not fret about for a second. It's just been sensationalized in recent years. There are prominent scientists who do not believe in global warming. They base it on scientific facts rather than media scare tactics.

Midnight Ninja
11-26-2009, 10:47 PM
I don't get why Al Gore is supposed to be the leader of the climate change movement. Just because he got a nobel prize?

There is various data out there that supports global warming. And even then, don't you think humans are living way beyond their means?
I'm not critisizing anybody since I use a petrol burner, fly way too often and have a somewhat excessive lifestyle. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be open to change.

JolánGagó
11-26-2009, 11:07 PM
sometimes i wonder why i put jolan gago on my ignore list some time ago as he's certainly fairly entertaining (all doofuses are, plus bilbo ain't on it and he's competing in gago's league). but then he reminds me very effectively. thanks for quoting him. :D

Expected reply from the clueless, ad-hominem attacks.

buddyholly
11-26-2009, 11:36 PM
who the eff is paying the vast majority of scientists that say climate change is the biggest issue we're facing today?

Universities, governments and the Nobel Committee.

I have some experience of how the universities work and at least in the United States there is more professional in-fighting and jealously than in any other workplace I have seen. Making climate change a POLITICAL issue is a left wing objective and professors in the US are decidedly left-wing. You have probably read stories about scientists, who want to publish data opposed to the Gore religion, having problems.

And, unlike Zirconek who just posts that climate change is a fact, remember that climate has been changing since the earth began. The present debate is about what is causing it. And when you have Stephen Schneider as one of Gore's chief buddies in promoting the climate change panic and urgent need for global political action, there is every reason to be a skeptic. In the 1970's the same guy published a paper in Science suggesting that the actual level of use of aerosols could trigger an ice age. Do you think he would be a ''world famous'' climatologist and professor at Stanford if he was still advocating global cooling? Why should we believe him now?

Did you know that the president of the Maldives recently made a speech underwater? He was begging for international aid for his country which was about to go under any day now!!!!!! Then the Norwegian who did the years-long commissioned study of the Maldives ocean levels wrote him a letter saying he was disgusted at his behaviour. The study clearly showed that there was no imminent danger of a rise in ocean level that would be significant.

PS Your post above says the global warming advocates don't have any money. I'd take a tenured professor's salary any day. And sadly, the real answer as to who the eff is paying these guys, it's you and me, the taxpayers.

Bilbo
11-27-2009, 12:00 AM
sure the climate was changing in the past and will continue to do so but apparently this time it's changing faster than ever before. if it continues like that for the next few decades we might have something on our hands.

JolánGagó
11-27-2009, 12:21 AM
sure the climate was changing in the past and will continue to do so but apparently this time it's changing faster than ever before. if it continues like that for the next few decades we might have something on our hands.

That isn't supported by hard data.

out_here_grindin
11-27-2009, 01:03 AM
sure the climate was changing in the past and will continue to do so but apparently this time it's changing faster than ever before. if it continues like that for the next few decades we might have something on our hands.

only in select areas. But there are some areas where climate is decreasing. The world is not in equilibrium with climates. It never has. To assert that the whole world is uniformely changing, is something that would need overwhelming supportive evidence and all they have is sparce evidence.

Garson007
11-27-2009, 01:11 AM
the guys who want to diminish the pro-climate change topics are fully equipped: nuclear energy, oil, other fossil fuels etc.
Nuclear energy has no effect on AGW. All things considered, it is the future - both as fission and fusion.

Climate change is not a theory or possibility anymore, it's a fact according to scientific community.
Lol, actually it is a theory just not in the way of how most laymen define the term. It is undeniable that we put trapped carbon in circulation. It is also undeniable that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. However the "severe" predictions are finding it difficult to pass even simple hypothesis tests, irrespective of model.

We know two things:
The climate system is hugely unpredictable and we don't have nearly enough information to make a clear prediction, without reverting to sub-par models.
That we are increasing the carbon content in circulation.

buddyholly
11-27-2009, 01:59 AM
We know two things:

The climate system is hugely unpredictable and we don't have nearly enough information to make a clear prediction, without reverting to sub-par models.
That we are increasing the carbon content in circulation.

The people who have a career stake in climate change want to brainwash everyone into thinking it is 100% man-made.

One of the most ridiculous images of the last decade is Al Gore in his movie using a forklift to demonstrate how the blade end of the hockey stick graph was going straight up, indicating disastrously rising temperatures due to carbon emissions. Good movie stuff, but unfortunately the graph was fake. Politicians just see science as something to be manipulated to achieve their political goals.

buddyholly
11-27-2009, 02:08 AM
who do you think is pushing the climate agenda, buddyholly? i still have a hard time figuring out who's financing those guys as apparently they don't have any money and - as we all know - money is the main factor when it comes to pushing an agenda in the media. the guys who want to diminish the pro-climate change topics are fully equipped: nuclear energy, oil, other fossil fuels etc. have enormous sums to boycott any change whatsoever. the solar industry and the likes have hardly any money though.



Money is not the main factor when it comes to pushing an agenda in the media. Surely the almost complete surrender of the media to Obama illustrates that quite well. It was the political colour of the media personnel and a few bucks from Oprah, Barbra and Sean.

Maybe the oil, coal and gas industries know they have nothing to worry about. The energy policies being proposed by the warmers would cause economic disaster. How much do you hear about biofuels these days? That was the fashionable catchphrase for a while, until everyone realised that using food for fuel would lead to mass starvation around the world. Even Gore has admitted that the ethanol craze was stupid. I wonder what else in his list of things we have to do is unsound. He is unlikely to admit to wind power not meeting our needs. He is too heavily invested in that industry. Although he insists his investment is to encourage the industry, not to make a profit from it.

Mjau!
11-28-2009, 04:07 AM
We are almost certainly affecting the climate, the question is just how much and what will the consequences be, and anyone who claims to have the answer is most likely full of it. The climate models are certified garbage.

Bilbo
11-28-2009, 11:45 AM
The climate models are certified garbage.

it is not like mathematics or physics where everything is straight forward. in geosciences too many factors come together which makes it nearly impossible to make things perfect.

Stensland
11-29-2009, 08:33 PM
Universities, governments and the Nobel Committee.

since when do these institution beat out cold cash when it comes to placing opinions in the media?

it rather seems like parts of these three are the only incoruptible ones left on this planet, thank god. the rest can be bribed, shut down, derailed or blanked out by that very cold cash.

yes, people disagree on this subject. but that's people. scientists in general simply don't. i'm going with those guys here, sorry.

buddyholly
11-29-2009, 09:41 PM
Why not go with the scientists that want to publish data that shows different results from the Gore fanatics? You prefer to go with the ones that send emails discussing how to make sure the only published data is the data that supports their agenda. I do not think it is science at all when the agenda is set and the data is made to fit it.

I can't give links but my newspaper today said that last year governments around the world contributed $80 billion to research on the effects of global warming. That will keep a lot of climatologists in business.

Maybe German media is different, but in the US the media is overwhelmingly pro-left. So your cold cash argument does not hold water for me.

Jarl_02
11-29-2009, 10:39 PM
I'm gonna be honest, since the first post I really don't know what you're talking about, but I made this thread becuase I thought this organisation had a good message.

The earth is always changing, it is completely normal that the climate is changing, becuase it has always happened, but I think and from what I've heard, all the pollution is making the world change faster and all the living beings in the earth are not ready for it.

I guess when these changes happened "more naturally" everything started adapting at the same pace that the climate was changing.

But like I said, I don't know what you're talking about :wavey:

Stensland
11-30-2009, 04:00 PM
Why not go with the scientists that want to publish data that shows different results from the Gore fanatics? You prefer to go with the ones that send emails discussing how to make sure the only published data is the data that supports their agenda.

do you really think you'd stand a chance if we'd start a head-to-head re pr atrocities between "my guys" and "your guys"? you're clinging on some emails while "your guys" even officially get sponsored by exxon?


I do not think it is science at all when the agenda is set and the data is made to fit it.

me neither. but what i detest even more are hidden agendas.


I can't give links but my newspaper today said that last year governments around the world contributed $80 billion to research on the effects of global warming. That will keep a lot of climatologists in business.

yeah, the secret circle of climatologists (what number are we talking about here anyways?) beats out big oil. right.


Maybe German media is different, but in the US the media is overwhelmingly pro-left. So your cold cash argument does not hold water for me.

i'm going with maher here: over the last 30 years the left in the u.s. has moved to the right and the right has moved to a mental hospital. the u.s. media is pretty much centric, much of it would be considered right-wing in europe (gun control, foreign policy, STILL no consensus on health care WITHIN the democrats etc.).

it's all about pr. if pr departments can start wars (first gulf war and so on) pretty much on their own, they can obviously manipulate opinions on "cold" issues such as the climate change as well. pr departments prefer cold cash though instead of university seats or nobel prizes.

Jimnik
12-01-2009, 03:30 PM
since when do these institution beat out cold cash when it comes to placing opinions in the media?

it rather seems like parts of these three are the only incoruptible ones left on this planet, thank god. the rest can be bribed, shut down, derailed or blanked out by that very cold cash.
Dude, there are no perfectly incorruptible institutions on this planet.

In the words of Noel Coward: "everybody in the world is bent".

buddyholly
12-05-2009, 03:43 AM
yes, people disagree on this subject. but that's people. scientists in general simply don't. i'm going with those guys here, sorry.

It is beginning to look like ''those guys'' you went with are guys that decided that ''peer review'' meant reviewing each other's papers and preventing publication of data that contradicted their ''story''.

No wonder the Gore camp began to say some years ago that the debate was over. What they meant was they don't want their data made public.

buddyholly
12-05-2009, 03:53 AM
yeah, the secret circle of climatologists (what number are we talking about here anyways?) beats out big oil. right.





The problem was not Exxon, but Enron, Gore's partner in the scamming game. In the end though Enron itself was the scam.

buddyholly
12-05-2009, 03:56 AM
Plain wrong, very poor comment. Several things are to be considered in recent climate changes surveys, like the scale, data (direct and indirect), new factors introduced by society that affect the climate and others. Human activity is changing the global and local climates and its consequences are being predicted as very severe. Climate change is not a theory or possibilty anymore, it's a fact according to scientific community.

Guess you were just a couple of days early with that post. Now we know that we know nothing. The EAU group have scammed the world.

Aloimeh
12-05-2009, 03:56 AM
who cares about this shit, it's all a fraud, climate have changed back and forth in countless occasions since Earth exists and it will do so many times more in spite of all UN assemblies and Goresque fakery in the world.

100% agree.

buddyholly
12-05-2009, 03:59 AM
yeah, the secret circle of climatologists (what number are we talking about here anyways?) beats out big oil. right.





Clearly a very small number. But for a world that was dying for climate change to be true and for a change in the world order, it was enough to fool most people.

out_here_grindin
12-05-2009, 04:00 AM
buddyholly is spewing nothing but facts

Aloimeh
12-05-2009, 04:11 AM
Money is not the main factor when it comes to pushing an agenda in the media. Surely the almost complete surrender of the media to Obama illustrates that quite well. It was the political colour of the media personnel and a few bucks from Oprah, Barbra and Sean.

Maybe the oil, coal and gas industries know they have nothing to worry about. The energy policies being proposed by the warmers would cause economic disaster. How much do you hear about biofuels these days? That was the fashionable catchphrase for a while, until everyone realised that using food for fuel would lead to mass starvation around the world. Even Gore has admitted that the ethanol craze was stupid. I wonder what else in his list of things we have to do is unsound. He is unlikely to admit to wind power not meeting our needs. He is too heavily invested in that industry. Although he insists his investment is to encourage the industry, not to make a profit from it.

Excellent.

MalwareDie
12-05-2009, 04:21 AM
Scientists can't accurately predict everything because there are too many factors, as Bilbo has already stated but it is a fact that the Earth is warming at a faster rate. It will warm up at an even faster pace as the ocean absorbs less and less greenhouse gases because of potentially catastrophic changes in marine systems.

Garson007
12-05-2009, 07:51 AM
Scientists can't accurately predict everything because there are too many factors, as Bilbo has already stated but it is a fact that the Earth is warming at a faster rate. It will warm up at an even faster pace as the ocean absorbs less and less greenhouse gases because of potentially catastrophic changes in marine systems.
Catastrophic changes in marine systems? Where does this prediction come from?