Jump to content

Recommended Posts

You know, actually look at the various optional measures presented to address IPR… actually recognize that, as a draft, assorted options of varying complexity/magnitude exist within that draft… and, of course, realize it’s actually a draft proposal subject to negotiations.
1) Developing countries have no interest in a climate deal that does anything other that hand them money and technology. There is no way they would agree to a deal that did not effectively eliminate IP protections on technologies.

2) The idiots running the US and EU administrations right now are desperate to "do something" on climate that there is a risk that they would give in to developing country demands.

3) The net result is theorectical benefit of 'market based' mechanisms to control CO2 would be eliminated by any deal on 'technology transfer'

Again – more nonsense. The fact you highlight AIDS drugs… as an exception… indicates you know nothing of TRIPS as applied to the broader pharmaceuticals
Of course, any IP which is deemed useful to developing countries is confiscated/stolen by governments. You can rationalize the theft as much as you want but it does not change the fact that taking away IP rights eliminates the incentive to develop such drugs in the first place.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 506
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yes, certainly… please press this AIDS drug analogy… we really need to see the complete social conscious of climate change deniers.
Pressing the AIDS drug analogy doesn't have anything to do with social conscious.

Pardon! If the choice is between allowing hundreds of thousands... millions... of AIDS infected persons to die, rather than provide affordable drugs, I would most certainly translate that into a (lack of) social conscious.

If governments want companies to share technology with poor countries, they should have to buy it... like anyone else.

And if the "poor countries" aren't in position to "buy it"... and there's global political acceptance for the need to counter the affects of ongoing/increased AGW (which there is), negotiated measures will be realized to ensure the counter efforts are global reaching/encompassing. One can either rise to a level of your "forced licensing" negativity, or recognize that alternatives exist in technology transfer... examples of these (optional) alternatives were stated in a preceding post, or are available in their entirety within the actual draft Copenhagen declaration. Notwithstanding actual negotiations that may bring forward additional avenues for consideration...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to wealth transfer, there really doesn't appear to be much doubt that this is one of the, if not the major purpose behind the proposals being put forth for Copenhagen. Why you jeer at that is rather beyond me.

I think Harper is doing what he feels he has to do to keep the Libs and NDP from using climate change as a club to beat him with - not all he can do, not enough to completely rob them of that as an issue, but enough that it isn't resonating as much as it would otherwise if he were to simply ignore it. He'll have to impliment some kind of plan, but I expect him to keep delaying as long as possible in hopes the "science" unravels before we get too deeply involved.

Wealth transfer is an easy go-to skeptics talking point... you've stated you've been swayed to one side of the debate by recent "board postings". Clearly, you're a deep thinker.

I'm quite amazed you would suggest Harper is being disingenuous in his dealings with other world government leaders... and in the statements he's offered to the Canadian public concerning the need to address climate change. You're actually suggesting Harper has falsely politicized the issue within Canada and that he doesn't believe what he's signing/saying about climate change... and that he's really waiting for the "science clock to run down" before he actually has to commit Canada to everything he's been signing/saying... and everything he will continue to sign/say. Oh my - what does that make Harper?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) Developing countries have no interest in a climate deal that does anything other that hand them money and technology. There is no way they would agree to a deal that did not effectively eliminate IP protections on technologies.

2) The idiots running the US and EU administrations right now are desperate to "do something" on climate that there is a risk that they would give in to developing country demands.

3) The net result is theorectical benefit of 'market based' mechanisms to control CO2 would be eliminated by any deal on 'technology transfer'

Of course, all countries have self-interest... one must accept that not all countries are in position to deal with countering the impacts of their contributions to climate change... some countries will need assistance. You're really hung up on IPR and won't accept that agreements have been struck in other areas to manage technology transfer and IPR - you can continue to press the point around "confiscation" or you can accept that basic (and creative) avenues exist beyond your "forced licensing" scenarios. I suggested you read the actual draft Copenhagen declaration for insight into initial options being presented. I also highlighted a recent U.S. House of Representatives Resolution that should put to rest any of your concerns over IPR... wait a few more weeks to see if that Resolution has affected the content of the G8 Summit framework to be released shortly - I expect it will have influence.

Again – more nonsense. The fact you highlight AIDS drugs… as an exception… indicates you know nothing of TRIPS as applied to the broader pharmaceuticals collective.
Of course, any IP which is deemed useful to developing countries is confiscated/stolen by governments. You can rationalize the theft as much as you want but it does not change the fact that taking away IP rights eliminates the incentive to develop such drugs in the first place.

You don't know what you're talking about as relates to TRIPS, the pharmaceutical sector, the types of drugs under consideration within TRIPS... and more significantly... the caveats that exist within TRIPS - caveats placed under pressures from global pharmaceutical companies. Do you want me to quote those caveats that show the ridiculousness of your statement suggesting, as you state, "any IP which is deemed useful". Hey now - why not actually read the applicable TRIPS agreement covering pharmaceuticals - what a concept!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a video conversation between Glen Beck and Christopher Monkton that should scare the begeesus out of anyone who cares. This is truly scary and where the heck is the media - one of the biggest stories ever. Notice the reference to Canadian Maurice Strong.

Link: http://www.online-video.net/video/0NIN-Pqc...he-nwo-bho.html

Edited by Keepitsimple
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a video conversation between Glen Beck and Christopher Monkton that should scare the begeesus out of anyone who cares. This is truly scary and where the heck is the media - one of the biggest stories ever. Notice the reference to Canadian Maurice Strong.

Maurice Strong is the godfather of the Kyoto accord and was the first president of Petro-Canada. A scathing article of his activities was printed in the Western Standard a few years ago when the Iraq Oil for Food scandal broke. He was one of the engineers of that fiasco as well. He is busy consolidating power of the UN and this Copenhagen thing is his latest snake oil for the world.

I wouldn't be surprised if he isn't behind the current legal attacks on Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant.

If Obama signs this then he is definitely selling America down the river. It is unconstitutional to make any treaty that will override the government of the people for the people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a video conversation between Glen Beck and Christopher Monkton that should scare the begeesus out of anyone who cares. This is truly scary and where the heck is the media - one of the biggest stories ever. Notice the reference to Canadian Maurice Strong.

Link: http://www.online-video.net/video/0NIN-Pqc...he-nwo-bho.html

Will this be Barack's legacy or government run health care in America?

Maurice Strong was the man behind the Iraq Food for oil Scam that ran in the nineties. Somehow he escaped that unscathed. I wouldn't be surprised if he isn't behind the attacks on Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant. They printed a scathing article on him in the Western Standard a few years ago.

Strong seems to be at the centre of a lot of UN activity attempting to consolidate it's power over national governments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a video conversation between Glen Beck and Christopher Monkton that should scare the begeesus out of anyone who cares. This is truly scary and where the heck is the media - one of the biggest stories ever.

Nice font size Simple! And there we have it... surprised it actually took this long to bring forward one of the more prolific deniers - with Glenn Beck as a bonus. There's no shortage of web information to refute science specific claims/references from Monckton - someone thrust forward by the denialsphere as a reputed "expert"... an expert with no actual science background/foundation. However, in keeping with the focus of the thread, the following recent article seems to capture the essence of the false/fabricated Monckton interpretations... that find their way to Glenn Beck audiences and appear ridiculously font sized in forum discussions labeled as a "scary huge story"!

Problem is, Monckton's reading of the proposed framework for negotiation -- hardly a completed treaty -- was woefully inaccurate. And that's a nice way of putting it. The document clearly does nothing whatsoever to promote any sort of world government, and indeed,
it refers to the efforts of national governments repeatedly
.

Here's the sole evidence in the framework for Monckton's claim:
The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars:
government
; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following:

(a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate.

(The COP to which that language refers is the Conference of the Parties, which the official U.N. Web site explains as, "the 'supreme body' of the Convention, that is, its highest decision-making authority. It is an association of all the countries that are Parties to the Convention ... [and] is responsible for keeping international efforts to address climate change on track.")

Unfortunately for Monckton and those who've fallen for what he said without doing some rudimentary checking of the document's language, there's more than one meaning of the word "government." There's the conventional definition, the one he used, and then there's this one, which is very clearly the one intended in this case: "direction; control; management; rule: the government of one's conduct."

Yup Simple... clearly a... "scary huge story" - one absolutely rocketing through the denialsphere. Actually, that's the real huge story here - how something this false/fabricated could be construed as supporting Monckton's claimed "New World Order"... in the making.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ultimate goal will be population control Like DAvid Rockefeller the $12 trillion man sais. They will exterminate man to levels of 500 million-1 billion. They tried it with Aids but found it was counter productive as it takes to long, so they develop biological warfare like the H1N1 , Ebola

Copenhagen is just a distraction to throw the masses into communism

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A politician in New Zealand,

Mayor Michael Laws raised the idea of sterilisation for the "underclass" in exchange for a $10,000 payment as a solution to the child abuse problem.

Leilani Marietta Muir (previously named Leilani Marie Scorah) (born July 15, 1944, in Calgary) was the first person to file a successful law suit against the province of Alberta, Canada for wrongful sterilization under the Sexual Sterilization Act of Alberta. Her case led to the initiation of several other class action suits against the province for wrongful sterilization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wealth transfer is an easy go-to skeptics talking point... you've stated you've been swayed to one side of the debate by recent "board postings". Clearly, you're a deep thinker.

Thanks. I'd like to say the same but, sorry, I just can't see any evidence of that.

. You're actually suggesting Harper has falsely politicized the issue within Canada and that he doesn't believe what he's signing/saying about climate change...

I think the issue has already been politicized by Jean Chretien. And it's fairly clear Chretien didn't believe in what he was saying and didn't care about what he was signing either. In fact, I've seen no evidence Ignatieff believes in it either, though of course, he's more than willing to use it as a political weapon. Harper appears to be just playing the same game.

Layton may believe it, but Layton couldn't change a light bulb without an instruction manual and a certified master electrician to explain it to him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

one absolutely rocketing through the denialsphere. Actually, that's the real huge story here - how something this false/fabricated could be construed as supporting Monckton's claimed "New World Order"... in the making.
Read the document yourself:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com...nhagen-2009.pdf

Commitments made by Annex I Parties to support implementation of the Adaptation

Framework through financial and technology transfer shall be legally binding, with provisions for a

[monitoring, reporting and verification] mechanism to ensure compliance.

Spin it all you want but any discussion of legally binding financial and technology transfer with "mechanisms" to ensure compliance is a discussion about a "world government".

The entire document is full of provisions which do nothing more than take wealth from people in developed countries and give it to corrupt UN officials and developing country governments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup Simple... clearly a... "scary huge story" - one absolutely rocketing through the denialsphere. Actually, that's the real huge story here - how something this false/fabricated could be construed as supporting Monckton's claimed "New World Order"... in the making.
Read the document yourself:

Having referred to the Copenhagen declaration many times... and having suggested you actually read it several times, I certainly don't need to be directed to the actual document via your skeptics blog link - thanks anyways. In any case, I'm content to see you've actually taken the effort to ferret the document out... well done!

Commitments made by Annex I Parties to support implementation of the Adaptation Framework through financial and technology transfer shall be legally binding, with provisions for a [monitoring, reporting and verification] mechanism to ensure compliance.

Spin it all you want but any discussion of legally binding financial and technology transfer with "mechanisms" to ensure compliance is a discussion about a "world government".

The entire document is full of provisions which do nothing more than take wealth from people in developed countries and give it to corrupt UN officials and developing country governments.

I'm surprised - I actually hadn't taken you for a complete noob in regards the UNFCCC. This 1992 document should give you the foundation to begin a more suitable dialogue... bring you up to speed - so to speak. In regards your quote I'll draw your attention to Article 4... it's a bit lengthy but you'll eventually recognize the broad commitments signatories have accepted, vis-a-vis developed/developing countries.

UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE

Within the clause you quote, given your bolded font, I sense you have a raised concern... given your apparent naivete concerning UNFCCC, you probably aren't aware this is, really, nothing new - Kyoto certainly involves reporting measures and binding legalities.

I've also taken the liberty of linking you to the active/in-progress "steam-lined' version of the following document currently up for working review in the coming days in Barcelona... again, as a part of the lead-up to Copenhagen:

CONTACT GROUP ON ENHANCED ACTION ON ADAPTATION AND ITS MEANS OF IMPLEMENTATION

Your repeated "world government" idiocy is simply... nonsense. As for your/the repeated wealth transfer bleating, perhaps you might advise exactly how Canada's, how the world's developed nations, UNFCCC commitments will be realized without 'degrees' of financial assistance from developed countries... to developing countries. Perhaps take a queue from the recent UN speech given by U.S. President Obama:

And those wealthy nations that did so much damage to the environment in the 20th century must accept our obligation to lead. But responsibility does not end there. While we must acknowledge the need for differentiated responses, any effort to curb carbon emissions must include the fast-growing carbon emitters who can do more to reduce their air pollution without inhibiting growth. And any effort that fails to help the poorest nations both adapt to the problems that climate change have already wrought and help them travel a path of clean development simply will not work.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Within the clause you quote, given your bolded font, I sense you have a raised concern... given your apparent naivete concerning UNFCCC, you probably aren't aware this is, really, nothing new

As for your/the repeated wealth transfer bleating, perhaps you might advise exactly how Canada's, how the world's developed nations, UNFCCC commitments will be realized without 'degrees' of financial assistance from developed countries... to developing countries.

Well, that's clear enough. You obviously concede the point that it IS a wealth transfer scheme! You just think that's a good idea.

That makes things simpler. We can move on to whether or not such wealth transfer is actually good for the goal of reductions, or for our own economy, or for the economies of developing nations, for that matter.

As to my latter point, one thing that seems to be forgotten is that newly developing nations actually have a huge advantage, in that they are starting with modern, more efficient technologies. If they choose to, they can develop a much cleaner, efficient and therefore more profitable infrastructure. A case in point is how with a cell phone system not only can you operate at a higher level of technology with information transfer than the old landline methods, you don't have to built a network of wires and poles across your country.

The issue is not so much money as it is education. If your people aren't literate they are not likely to be able to embrace the new technologies. Simply giving them money is like putting the cart before the horse.

Meanwhile, if they have such advantages, what competitive position will WE be left in after we transfer away our own wealth? Will our children be desperately trying to emigrate to the Sudan for a better life?

Where is it written as a Law of the Universe that we will ALWAYS be a wealthy people ourselves? We worked hard as a country for our wealth and succeeded so well that other peoples wish to come HERE for the opportunity. Now we have a scheme where they could simply sit tight and let us ship money to them! A scheme where actually auditing what they DO with the money is considered rude!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And all of this is predicated on the "fact" that carbon dioxide is killing our planet......and if we listen to the zeolots, we have already reached or will soon reach a tipping point whereby mankind will never be able to recover. Fortunately, our politics have been dragging and will continue to drag this nonsense out so that we can observe, as we are right now, that CO2 has only minimal impact on Climate Change. CO2 is rising but atmospheric temperatures are not. Regardless, we are still going to continue to reduce smog and dirty air caused by industry and exhaust emissions - it's a health issue......and we're still going to strive to create clean energy alternatives - not because the world will fall apart - but because we need commercial alternatives to fossil fuels and because it's the right thing to do from an environmental point of view (not a climate change one).

Follow the H1N1 pandemic closely......when all is said and done, we will not have anywhere near the average 4000 deaths that seasonal flu causes in Canada every single year. But what you'll have is a perfect example of the power of the media to generate anguish and fear and how politically incorrect it is to have a differing view because "what if we're right". This is exactly what is going on with Climate Change.....in the face of immature and evolving science, the "what if we're right" crowd is getting all the headlines. Taking the alarmists at their word, the truth is that if they are right, there is absolutely nothing we can do about it - we are all doomed - China and India will be spewing CO2 for the next 40 or 50 years at rates that we have never seen. The alarmists have categorically stated - the tipping point is around the corner.....we are absolutely, without doubt - doomed. Don't even bother saying "we have to do something"......we're doomed. Our feeble little attempts through Kyoto have not even begun to slow the rise of CO2......and neither will Copenhagen. So now, the question is better posed "what if they're wrong?".....what if we go ahead with all this nonsense for no gain and a tremendous economic loss?

Edited by Keepitsimple
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And all of this is predicated on the "fact" that carbon dioxide is killing our planet......and if we listen to the zeolots, we have already reached or will soon reach a tipping point whereby mankind will never be able to recover.

I am reminded of the tobacco industry saying that there was no link to health issues and smoking. I can imagine that some people probably still think that way.

In any event, it isn't just CO2 that causes warming. Methane has to be looked at as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And all of this is predicated on the "fact" that carbon dioxide is killing our planet......and if we listen to the zeolots, we have already reached or will soon reach a tipping point whereby mankind will never be able to recover. Fortunately, our politics have been dragging and will continue to drag this nonsense out so that we can observe, as we are right now, that CO2 has only minimal impact on Climate Change. CO2 is rising but atmospheric temperatures are not. Regardless, we are still going to continue to reduce smog and dirty air caused by industry and exhaust emissions - it's a health issue......and we're still going to strive to create clean energy alternatives - not because the world will fall apart - but because we need commercial alternatives to fossil fuels and because it's the right thing to do from an environmental point of view (not a climate change one).

Quite right! We're dealing with a religious movement rather than a scientific one. "Man is BAD! He must be PUNISHED!" That's what all the eco-drivel seems to come down to, once you cut through the crap.

It's been said before that after communism died and all its failings were revealed in the ashes all the "useful idiots" as Lenin called them became eco-warriors!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quite right! We're dealing with a religious movement rather than a scientific one. "Man is BAD! He must be PUNISHED!" That's what all the eco-drivel seems to come down to, once you cut through the crap.

It's been said before that after communism died and all its failings were revealed in the ashes all the "useful idiots" as Lenin called them became eco-warriors!

Oh we've definitely been dealing with scientists alright, and if even half of what has been said about the conspiratorial cult-like behaviour of the vast majority of them is true then all we're left with is yet another batch of useless idiots leading us down the garden path. Just like the priests and their religions, politicians and their politics or economists and their economics.

Who'll fail us next I wonder?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Within the clause you quote, given your bolded font, I sense you have a raised concern... given your apparent naivete concerning UNFCCC, you probably aren't aware this is, really, nothing new - Kyoto certainly involves reporting measures and binding legalities.

As for your/the repeated wealth transfer bleating, perhaps you might advise exactly how Canada's, how the world's developed nations, UNFCCC commitments will be realized without 'degrees' of financial assistance from developed countries... to developing countries. Perhaps take a queue from the recent UN speech given by U.S. President Obama:

And those wealthy nations that did so much damage to the environment in the 20th century must accept our obligation to lead. But responsibility does not end there. While we must acknowledge the need for differentiated responses, any effort to curb carbon emissions must include the fast-growing carbon emitters who can do more to reduce their air pollution without inhibiting growth. And any effort that fails to help the poorest nations both adapt to the problems that climate change have already wrought and help them travel a path of clean development simply will not work.

Well, that's clear enough. You obviously concede the point that it IS a wealth transfer scheme! You just think that's a good idea.

Is it you're against providing financial support to developing nations... in principle? If that's the case, we'll need to revisit the many, many previous aspects of past/present instances of financial support provided to developing nations? Is that what you're saying? Speaking generally... when does providing financial support to developing countries migrate into the sound bite/catch phrase, "wealth transfer"? :lol:

As to my latter point, one thing that seems to be forgotten is that newly developing nations actually have a huge advantage, in that they are starting with modern, more efficient technologies. If they choose to, they can develop a much cleaner, efficient and therefore more profitable infrastructure.

I purposely added the Obama quote back in... as I suggested, we should take a queue from that quote - that includes specific references to both the need for differentiated responses and "fast growing carbon emitters". Obviously, a successful Copenhagen 'Protocol' will be one that the U.S. signs (this time) - the challenge is there for negotiators to construct an agreement that addresses the appropriate assignment of countries within the assorted Annex categorizations, the mechanisms for monitoring adaptation, the conditions to shift country Annex categorization assignments, correlated financial support commitments within Annex categorizations, etc., etc., etc. Of course... this is exactly what is being done within the current work being done by UNFCCC in the lead-up to Copenhagen. It remains to be seen how well your "advantages" concern is reflected within the final declaration... and, of course, how that concern reflects within each respective countries negotiators willingness to sign the Copenhagen 'Protocol'.

The issue is not so much money as it is education. If your people aren't literate they are not likely to be able to embrace the new technologies. Simply giving them money is like putting the cart before the horse.

The current draft declaration includes much more than straight financial support - it also includes such things as education, training, public awareness, 'technology action plans', operational planning assistance, risk reduction/mitigation measures, technology transfer/knowledge sharing, etc. And... of course... there are accompanying commitments from developing countries that correlate directly.

Meanwhile, if they have such advantages, what competitive position will WE be left in after we transfer away our own wealth? Will our children be desperately trying to emigrate to the Sudan for a better life?

Where is it written as a Law of the Universe that we will ALWAYS be a wealthy people ourselves? We worked hard as a country for our wealth and succeeded so well that other peoples wish to come HERE for the opportunity. Now we have a scheme where they could simply sit tight and let us ship money to them! A scheme where actually auditing what they DO with the money is considered rude!

Certainly - obviously - nothing is for perpetuity... there are significant aspects of the current draft declaration that include monitoring the progress/implementation of adaptation, of capacity-building, etc. Do you believe countries will be willing to sign something that doesn't include "monitoring/audit" aspects? Really?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fortunately, our politics have been dragging and will continue to drag this nonsense out so that we can observe, as we are right now, that CO2 has only minimal impact on Climate Change. CO2 is rising but atmospheric temperatures are not.

very direct/assertive... please don't stop now... why not expand on your science and the "driver-driveee" relationships of CO2/temperature, on time-lags, on ice-core findings, etc. Seems a bit meaty, Simple... but it would appear with such an assertive statement that you must be up for it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

very direct/assertive... please don't stop now... why not expand on your science and the "driver-driveee" relationships of CO2/temperature, on time-lags, on ice-core findings, etc. Seems a bit meaty, Simple... but it would appear with such an assertive statement that you must be up for it?

Waldo - here's the latest from your pal Al Gore. This Greenhouse Gasbag lacks any credibility whatsoever......is it any wonder we call you guys Alarmists?

Gore beats climate change drum in Dubai

Oct 27, 2009 at 18:44 View count (788) | | | 3 | |

By Shakir Husain

Lebanese don snorkels in climate protests

India calls for modest climate change goals

DUBAI - Al Gore was beating the climate change drum again on Tuesday, this time in Dubai, as the former U.S. vice president warned global warming will create “hundreds of millions of climate refugees”.

“Each one metre of sea level rise is associated with 100 million climate refugees in the world,” the Nobel laureate told a business forum in Dubai, which could see its famous man-made islands disappear under the waves if his predictions prove true.

“The North Pole ice cap is 40 percent gone already and could be completely and totally gone in the winter months in the next 5 to 10 years,” he warned.

If the North Pole were to melt it could increase sea levels by 67 metres, Gore said, speaking in the heart of an oil-rich region not known for its regard for the environment.

Link: http://business.maktoob.com/20090000389134...bai/Article.htm

Edited by Keepitsimple
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am reminded of the tobacco industry saying that there was no link to health issues and smoking. I can imagine that some people probably still think that way.

There was actual evidence to support that. There's none here, just a suspect computer model.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In any event, it isn't just CO2 that causes warming. Methane has to be looked at as well.
How about instead? The trouble with CO2 is there are no alternatives that can provide the energy we need at cost that we can afford. What this means is any anti-CO2 policy will fail and the only question is how much money will be wasted while posturing politicians pretend to do something.

Methane is a different story since the capture and disposal of the gas actually produces energy (unlike CO2 which has limited industrial value). Since studies say it may represent as much as 1/2 of the GHG problem it would make sense to focus exclusively on methane for now and revist the CO2 issue in 20-30 years after we have had a chance to further develop non CO2-emitting sources of energy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Waldo - here's the latest from your pal Al Gore. This Greenhouse Gasbag lacks any credibility whatsoever......is it any wonder we call you guys Alamists?

we can segway if you'd like... of course we'll see more of Gore in the next month's lead-up to Copenhagen... your linked article's Gore quote on the melting of the North Pole Ice cap is timely given recent thread references to methane...

Arctic sea ice minimum press release

...where accelerating arctic warming is viewed as one of the early climate change impacts... the prevailing scientific view holds that unless we're able to return to an appropriate CO2 ppm level, the Greenland ice sheet melting has the potential to release major levels of methane associated with related permafrost melting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,698
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    IPEM Group of Institutions
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Ethan Wylde earned a badge
      First Post
    • Yakuda went up a rank
      Experienced
    • QuebecOverCanada went up a rank
      Grand Master
    • Jeary went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Gator earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...