Copenhagen Treaty

[Guest]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ene...llionaire.html

Al Gore could become world's first carbon billionaire
Al Gore, the former US vice president, could become the world's first carbon billionaire after investing heavily in green energy companies.
Last year Mr Gore's venture capital firm loaned a small California firm $75m to develop energy-saving technology.

The company, Silver Spring Networks, produces hardware and software to make the electricity grid more efficient
The deal appeared to pay off in a big way last week, when the Energy Department announced $3.4 billion in smart grid grants, the New York Times reports. Of the total, more than $560 million went to utilities with which Silver Spring has contracts.

The move means that venture capital company Kleiner Perkins and its partners, including Mr Gore, could recoup their investment many times over in coming years.

Few people have been as vocal about the urgency of global warming and the need to reinvent the way the world produces and consumes energy as Mr Gore. And few have put as much money behind their advocacy and are as well positioned to profit from this green transformation, if and when it comes.

Critics, mostly on the political right and among global warming sceptics, say Mr. Gore is poised to become the world's first "carbon billionaire," profiteering from government policies he supports that would direct billions of dollars to the business ventures he has invested in.

Representative Marsha Blackburn, Republican of Tennessee, has claimed that Mr Gore stood to benefit personally from the energy and climate policies he was urging Congress to adopt.

Mr Gore had said that he is simply putting his money where his mouth is.

"Do you think there is something wrong with being active in business in this country?" Mr. Gore said. "I am proud of it. I am proud of it."

And?

Chook.

[Kingbilly]

And?

Chook.

Maybe he should be a billionaire, after all he invented the internet
(well according to himself he did)...

[Guest]

Maybe he should be a billionaire, after all he invented the internet
(well according to himself he did)...

lol, actually that's just another promulgated misconception regarding Gore. He never actually said that he "invented the internet". It's just more of that bullshit I keep harping on about that serves no purpose other than to denigrate the opposing side.

Chook.

[melon....]

There will be no decision made in Copenhagen regarding Global Warming. Australia would be stupid to rush in to promote a wealth distribution program that will only benefit a few, and do absolutely nothing for the environment.

[Kingbilly]

Yes, the words he actually chose were not very wisely chosen but he only claimed to have taken the initiative to create the internet.

I think its propagated more because it is more representative of what a half wit he was, just like GWB.

[Guest]

And?

Chook.

I still haven't seen any definitive evidence pinpointing a cause for the greenhouse effect, I mean global warming, bugger, I really mean climate change. Is it still called that or has someone with a 'conflict of interest' come up with a new name? For God's sake, just show me some cold hard fact the we humans are soley responsible for this myth!

[Guest]

I still haven't seen any definitive evidence pinpointing a cause for the greenhouse effect, I mean global warming, bugger, I really mean climate change. Is it still called that or has someone with a 'conflict of interest' come up with a new name? For God's sake, just show me some cold hard fact the we humans are soley responsible for this myth!

Oh ok, so while you post nothing that contains or even mentions "cold hard facts" about the subject of this thread, you demand of others what you yourself can't produce?

There's a word for that, starts with H ends with crite - has an ypo in the middle, I'm sure you can figure out what word I mean.

Chook.

[melon....]

John its not about Fossil fuels, never was never has been.
RCTPN, They are not in abundant supply and will eventually run out.

We should have been off fossil fuels by now, but evertime someone gets close it gets bought out and shelved.

The current "climate change" / "global warming" fad is not about supplying a viable solution, its about making noise and insistance on righteousness. Why propose a proper solution when you can spend your time attacking your opposition, simply proposing rubbish and then screaming when someone attempts to contradict them.


The environment is not a "market", its not an economic tool. Its something to be taken seriously unfortunately its being abused and used by charlatans and the greedy for their own needs.

We have a Uranium reserve that would last teh world 2000 years at today's rate of consumption. Add the possiblity of perfecting Fusion, and it takes that potential to 10,000 years, with a 1000 times cleaner payload. They are almost there. Why isnt Wong and Co debating the merits of a long term, cheap, viable, sustainable, safe, and abundant Nuclear energy program?

Because it has nothing to do with fuels, consumption and emissions. This Global Warming, is indeed Global Domination. its about power. Who holds it, who crumbkles and who pays for the transfer of power. That's Political Power...not energy. If it was about energy, Australia could write her own ticket with the brains and reserevs we have here for Nuclear energy.

[Guest]

We have a Uranium reserve that would last teh world 2000 years at today's rate of consumption. Add the possiblity of perfecting Fusion, and it takes that potential to 10,000 years, with a 1000 times cleaner payload. They are almost there. Why isnt Wong and Co debating the merits of a long term, cheap, viable, sustainable, safe, and abundant Nuclear energy program?

Because it has nothing to do with fuels, consumption and emissions. This Global Warming, is indeed Global Domination. its about power. Who holds it, who crumbkles and who pays for the transfer of power. That's Political Power...not energy. If it was about energy, Australia could write her own ticket with the brains and reserevs we have here for Nuclear energy.

Yeah yeah yeah, we've all heard this "its about the formation of a communist world government" bullshit before Melon.

I'll just add you to the "crackpot brigade of conspiracy theorists that has not one shred of proof to back up their crap" list.

Chook.

[Kingbilly]

Still waiting for your facts Chook .....

BTW I have changed my thinking somewhat though.
I now think that the arguement whether there is Global Warming or isn't is the biggest load of absolute irrelevant crap. For me there is no doubt we must do what we can to protect the environment and be more efficient.

What the real problem is, is getting a solution that is "real", not some fruitcake carbon credit scheme that does nothing but move money around, or any other scheme that is not based on results.

Its funny you know I remember the days when you proved something would work before you implemented it. Now it seems you have to prove it isn't going to work before you don't implement it.

[Guest]

Still waiting for your facts Chook .....

BTW I have changed my thinking somewhat though.
I now think that the arguement whether there is Global Warming or isn't is the biggest load of absolute irrelevant crap. For me there is no doubt we must do what we can to protect the environment and be more efficient.

What the real problem is, is getting a solution that is "real", not some fruitcake carbon credit scheme that does nothing but move money around, or any other scheme that is not based on results.

Its funny you know I remember the days when you proved something would work before you implemented it. Now it seems you have to prove it isn't going to work before you don't implement it.

The only facts I have ever been asked to provide were to prove CO2 would warm the planet, which I freely admit I cannot provide.

And while I think your stance is credible, I would ask you to consider that a Carbon Trading scheme will in fact help "protect the environment" by making those that pollute pay and "be more efficient" with what energy reserves we have left.

Chook.

[Guest]

How do you know it is a farce? You say in reality, but how do you know that is the reality? Can you provide the name of the 2000 prominent climatoligists?

For the record, I am still undecided

No I cannot provide the lists of names

But in my opinion it is a farce based on my readings and a couple of interviews I have seen with climatologists who were on the IPPC panel.

[Guest]

The only facts I have ever been asked to provide were to prove CO2 would warm the planet, which I freely admit I cannot provide.

And while I think your stance is credible, I would ask you to consider that a Carbon Trading scheme will in fact help "protect the environment" by making those that pollute pay and "be more efficient" with what energy reserves we have left.

Chook.

So as I suspected

YOU HAVE NOTHING

what a surprise NOT

[Guest]

BBC Climate Correspondent lets the truth slip

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
9/10/2009
What happened to global warming?

By Paul Hudson
Climate correspondent, BBC News



Average temperatures have not increased for over a decade
This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

So what on Earth is going on?

Climate change sceptics, who passionately and consistently argue that man's influence on our climate is overstated, say they saw it coming.

They argue that there are natural cycles, over which we have no control, that dictate how warm the planet is. But what is the evidence for this?

During the last few decades of the 20th Century, our planet did warm quickly.


Recent research has ruled out solar influences on temperature increases
Sceptics argue that the warming we observed was down to the energy from the Sun increasing. After all 98% of the Earth's warmth comes from the Sun.

But research conducted two years ago, and published by the Royal Society, seemed to rule out solar influences.

The scientists' main approach was simple: to look at solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global average surface temperature.

And the results were clear. "Warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

But one solar scientist Piers Corbyn from Weatheraction, a company specialising in long range weather forecasting, disagrees.

He claims that solar charged particles impact us far more than is currently accepted, so much so he says that they are almost entirely responsible for what happens to global temperatures.

He is so excited by what he has discovered that he plans to tell the international scientific community at a conference in London at the end of the month.

If proved correct, this could revolutionise the whole subject.

Ocean cycles

What is really interesting at the moment is what is happening to our oceans. They are the Earth's great heat stores.


In the last few years [the Pacific Ocean] has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down

According to research conducted by Professor Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University last November, the oceans and global temperatures are correlated.

The oceans, he says, have a cycle in which they warm and cool cyclically. The most important one is the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO).

For much of the 1980s and 1990s, it was in a positive cycle, that means warmer than average. And observations have revealed that global temperatures were warm too.

But in the last few years it has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down.

These cycles in the past have lasted for nearly 30 years.

So could global temperatures follow? The global cooling from 1945 to 1977 coincided with one of these cold Pacific cycles.

Professor Easterbrook says: "The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling."

So what does it all mean? Climate change sceptics argue that this is evidence that they have been right all along.

They say there are so many other natural causes for warming and cooling, that even if man is warming the planet, it is a small part compared with nature.

But those scientists who are equally passionate about man's influence on global warming argue that their science is solid.

The UK Met Office's Hadley Centre, responsible for future climate predictions, says it incorporates solar variation and ocean cycles into its climate models, and that they are nothing new.

In fact, the centre says they are just two of the whole host of known factors that influence global temperatures - all of which are accounted for by its models.

In addition, say Met Office scientists, temperatures have never increased in a straight line, and there will always be periods of slower warming, or even temporary cooling.

What is crucial, they say, is the long-term trend in global temperatures. And that, according to the Met office data, is clearly up.

To confuse the issue even further, last month Mojib Latif, a member of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) says that we may indeed be in a period of cooling worldwide temperatures that could last another 10-20 years.


The UK Met Office says that warming is set to resume


Professor Latif is based at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University in Germany and is one of the world's top climate modellers.

But he makes it clear that he has not become a sceptic; he believes that this cooling will be temporary, before the overwhelming force of man-made global warming reasserts itself.

So what can we expect in the next few years?

Both sides have very different forecasts. The Met Office says that warming is set to resume quickly and strongly.

It predicts that from 2010 to 2015 at least half the years will be hotter than the current hottest year on record (1998).

Sceptics disagree. They insist it is unlikely that temperatures will reach the dizzy heights of 1998 until 2030 at the earliest. It is possible, they say, that because of ocean and solar cycles a period of global cooling is more likely.

One thing is for sure. It seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over. Indeed some would say it is hotting up.


There is no consensus on Climate Change

[Guest]

BBC Climate Correspondent lets the truth slip

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
9/10/2009
What happened to global warming?

By Paul Hudson
Climate correspondent, BBC News

Fabulous, we dont' have to do anything till 2030, lets just bury our heads in the sand till then ok?

Chook.