Today is the day when tens of thousands of Warmists from around the world representing individuals, groups, and governments, with a smattering of actual scientists (who are Believers, since the UN IPCC doesn’t want any of those icky folks who might disagree around), take fossil fueled flights and fossil fueled vehicles arrive in Warsaw
(Al Jazeera-I’m using AJ as it amuses me that a news outlet funded by oil is yammering on about this subject) World nations have launched a new round of talks in Warsaw to pave the way for a 2015 deal to cut climate-altering greenhouse-gas emissions.
The 12-day United Nations Climate Change Conference began on Monday in Poland’s capital amid a slew of warnings about a potentially disastrous rise in greenhouse-gas emissions.
Though no major decisions are expected at the conference, the level of progress could be an indicator of the world’s chances of reaching a deal in 2015, which is the new landmark year in the UN-led process after a 2009 summit in Copenhagen ended in discord.
Climate change is “very, very scary stuff. And evidence is accumulating weekly, monthly as to how dangerous this will be. So there is a huge urgency that we get on with this,” said Andrew Steer, the head of the World Resources Institute in Washington.
I wonder how many private jets have been flown into Warsaw so that all these Warmists can complain about fossil fuels? But, you know, Hotcoldwetdry is very scary stuff, say the modern version of practitioners of witchcraft.
I like the fact that they don’t really expect to get much done. I nice, calm working vacation, which is paid for by taxpayers in many cases.
“Global greenhouse gas emissions need to peak this decade, and get to zero net emissions by the second half of this century,” UN climate chief Christiana Figueres said on Thursday.
Funny. How many GHGs were put in the atmosphere just to get people to COP19, much less the gathering and getting them home?
Philippines climate negotiator @yebsano just took hunger vow for #COP19. Full text of his emotional plea to the world http://t.co/smtKuLzOFj
— Eric Holthaus (@EricHolthaus) November 11, 2013
Interesting. So the lead Philippines negotiator took a fossil fueled flight almost halfway around the world to go on a hunger strike over fossil fuels?
(Reuters) The Warsaw meeting will also seek ways to raise aid to help developing nations cope with climate change. They have been promised $100-billion a year by 2020, from $10-billion a year from 2010-12.
Strange, seems like this is some sort of redistributive scheme, negotiated and pushed by people who have pretty darned big “carbon footprints”.
Alas, no big Gore Effect for Warsaw, however, the daily highs and lows will be at to a few degrees below the historical norms for the next 10 days.
Good point. How much CO2 is being added to the atmosphere from this conference? What do you think?
If we assume 10,000 attendees, traveling 40,000 km each roundtrip (about half-way around the world and back), and using 0.113 kg CO2/passenger/km for long distance flying, we find the flights generate 45 million kg of CO2. In 2012, we added about 34,500,000,000,000 kg CO2 to the atmosphere. 45 million/34,500,000 million x 100% = 0.00013% of the total CO2 for the year. That’s one ten thousandth of a percent or about 1 one millionth of the total CO2 emitted in a year.
So in terms of carbon footprint, if the conference resulted in reducing CO2 emissions in a single year by more than 45 million kg (0.00013% of total emissions), it would be a success.
Currently we emit about 70 trillion pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, this has increased the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere some 40% from 280 ppm to 400 ppm, the highest level for at least 500,000 years. Human civilization has existed some 10,000 years, since the end of the last ice age, in a narrow global temperature range of about 1C. The global temperature has increased 1C in the past 100 yrs and will almost certainly increase another 2-3C in the next 100 yrs. Almost certainly due to atmospheric CO2.
Anyone else shocked by Jeffrey excusing the blatant hypocrisy of the COP19 attendees?
In other news, water is wet.
wt typed: “How many GHGs were put in the atmosphere just to get people to COP19, much less the gathering and getting them home?”
And I answered. Rather than shocked, I thought you might be grateful.
Do you consider the delegates more hypocritical than a conservative who collects Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment or Social Security? Or a warblogger who also doesn’t enlist?
It’s been my observation that far-right wingers use the accusation hypocrisy as their catch-all taunt for when they don’t want to engage an issue (which is always).
If you consider any climate realist a hypocrite because they use any fossil fuel than you’re an idiot. You choose.
“Hypocritical than a conservative.” Nice try Jeffery, but Medicare and Social Security are partly paid for by taxes taken out of one’s own paycheck, while unemployment is partly paid for by employer taxes. “Right wingers use the accusation hypocrisy as their catch all taunt for when they don’t want to engage in an issue(which is always). Really? We’re always here to engage a fool like you, now aren’t we? Let me correct your sentence: “Liberals always use the catch-all taunts of racist, homophobic, ect., when they don’t want to engage in an issue.” It’s called “projection”, Jeffery.
Jl,
Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid consume well over 50% of the US budget each year, and much of this goes to conservatives who (mistakenly) think we spend too much as a nation. So yes, that is no less hypocritical than delegates adding 0.0001% to the CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
And no, it is rare that a fool such as you engages an actual topic.
I won’t even speak to Jeffrey’s inane rant.
However I will whisper the words “Go To Meeting” and could look up several other such applications that we in my international company, and many other companies use on a daily basis, thereby saving our company (and by unintended consequence, the environment) a lot of wasted money on airfare and other travel related expenses. Like cabs, linos dinners out, etc etc.
You don’t think these folks could live by their own words? Well okay then, neither should I have to. And while I’m thinking about it, let me drive home and turn the heat up in my house while I am at work, and drive back here.
Then call me an idiot. You fucktards want Everyone Else to be forced by Government to do this and that because of your beliefs, yet the majority of you refuse to live your lives according to those same beliefs. The global average “carbon footprint” is 4 metric tons. Many of the COP attendees will put out more CO2 for this one working vacation than that average.
Nice attempt at hijacking the phrase “climate realists”. You are not realists. You’re hysterics, hypocrites, and people who would have been ignored as crazy conspiracy theory folks 30-40 years ago. You do not practice science, you make it up as you go along, and just pull crap out of your asses.
The people attending COP19 will complain about fossil fuels, yet they are using lots of it. So, yes, hypocrites. Period.
Jeffery seems to have his talking points mixed up. If we “mistakenly” think we spend too much, then why worry about how much is spent on Medicare, SS, ect.? Logic isn’t your strong point, is it? But, back in reality, we obviously do spend too much as incoming revenue is miles below outgoing revenue. I see economic logic isn’t your strong point, either. “No less hypocritical than delegates adding…” Why, yes it is Jeffery. That’s because your side keeps predicting climate doomsday, always in the future. This side isn’t. (Not that any of them have come true). “And no, it is a rare fool such as you….” Really? All kinds of folks engage you regularly, and 99% of the time they make you the fool. Reading comprehension isn’t one your strong points, either, now is it?
wt,
You at least addressed a couple of sticking points.
1. You raised the possibility of being an idiot.
2. And you finally put a number on what constitutes a fossil fuel hypocrite in your world. Absolutely no use of fossil fuels or they’re hypocrites. My response is to see “1” above. I explained why in an earlier comment. See 0.0001%
Nice deflection with the global avg carbon footprint, but it’s not really relevant, is it? (And it’s almost 5 metric tonnes per person, not 4). Most world citizens add little carbon to the atmosphere, but per capita, modern Western economies do (and have for decades; CO2 accumulates) – and along with the absolute numbers of people in the developing economies of India and China – are causing the damage. Africans add less than 1 ton per person, Americans 17 tons. China’s output has almost quadrupled and the US has dropped about 15%.
If the rest of the world’s citizens had the typical US citizen carbon footprint we would be adding at least 4 times more carbon per year than now. Many uber conservatives do not view carbon as a pollutant and think 4 times more will be a good thing. After all CO2 was much higher 100,000,000 years ago and the world did not end.
Economists maintain the cost of doing nothing about global warming will be much more expensive than the cost of doing something. It is estimated that slowing carbon pollution adequately may slow the world economies 0.1 percentage point per year. Not insignificant, but also not as bad as the worldwide economic depression we’re trying to climb out of now.
Screen cap of weather.com page for Warsaw Poland
Seems awfully cold there. Almost like a coming winter spell or something.
Not even touching upon his data for his calculations, J assumes one plane flight a year for these conferences. yet, we know that there are hundreds of flights for this one conference alone, let alone the cars that are rented, trucks to move the freight, oil and gas burned to move the food from there to there, thousands of people brought in\or drive in to the city to help facilitate a conference of this size.
If these people were somewhat serious, they’d cancel their Poland conference, and schedule it for the Philippines and allow all attendees to do volunteer work, donate their food and clothing, water, etc. But, I doubt they’ll give up their lavish extravaganza for a 2nd world nation. let alone some 3rd world one.
BTW J, please provide proof that “conservatives” use up most of the welfare in this nation.
But yeah, J loves to equivocate and justify his side’s hypocritical lifestyle. J claims that asking these thousands of people to give up their conferences is just stupid talk. Just Teach being Hypocritical. Yet isn’t it J that’s demanding that we peons give up our cars, our Air Conditioning, our constant cheap power, all for the sake of the planet wide CO2 amount?
Tell me J, how small of a percentage is my CO2 output compared to global?
Isn’t it your side that always demands, “gotta start somewhere” (basically)?
So, as Teach always says, “put your money\CO2 where your mouth is.”
Show us that you are serious, by cutting your OWN CO2 levels, then we might take some notice.
gummyballs,
It’s 40F in Poland in November, therefore global warming is a hoax? Solid argument. Stockholm is on high alert. Case closed.
AGW is a hoax because the Earth has warmed before. Cigarettes can not cause cancer because humans got cancer before tobacco was discovered.
And then you mock the catastrophe in the Philippines. Nice.
When did I say that conservatives use up most of the welfare in this nation?
Who is demanding we give up our cars or A/C? What I hear is that we should just find reduced CO2 sources for energy production. Obviously, conservation of fossil fuel consumption can be a big help – Also hybrid cars, electric cars, solar energy, wind energy, passive solar, more efficient buildings and homes. Increased insulation does not cripple the economy. The utility bills for my small house in the Midwest are miniscule.
Do you guys really think that those that are serious about global warming have a carbon footprint larger than you? Do you really think far-right conservatives are buying hybrids and Chevy Volts? Do you think Tea Partiers have more solar panels than lefties? We moved closer to our workplaces 30 yrs ago and have driven tiny, fuel efficient cars for decades. We pay extra for renewable-sourced electricity. So stop your nonsensical personal attacks and stop making excuses for not discussing issues.
Jeffrey, you do not as a lefty, hold a monopoly on environmental friendliness.
Most conservatives are conservationists by nature.
My husband and I have done some of those things you pride yourself on ourselves for decades as well. Better insulation, replacement windows as soon as we had the funds to do it, and we try to use green electric companies (we did, until their prices skyrocketed a couple of years ago) We once many years ago looked into a small windmill/turbine for our own personal power source, but were informed by neighbors they would not be happy with it, and when we saw how large it would be decided to forgo it. I draw the line at the cars, will not own one myself but hold no grudge against anyone who wants them.
People always like to reduce their electric bills or heating bills, but not everyone can afford to make some of these changes to their homes, cars or whatever. You can’t force them to, and you shouldn’t have government subsidize these things.
It’s the mindset that there should be taxes and mandates on households and excessive pressures on businesses that will cripple our economy and send business elsewhere, and only the rich global warmists will get richer, that is such a load of horsecrap.
It’s the mindset that people have to believe what you believe or else, that is so infuriating. The science is NOT in, and if it is- in your opinion- then it is no longer science it is a religion.
Trish,
Science is never settled. Even a major theory like AGW is always one good study from being refuted. Same with the theory of evolution.
The evidence favoring the theory of AGW is overwhelming.
First part correct.
Second part lie.