Copenhagen Climate Conference Collapses

Ronald Bailey's fifth and final dispatch from the Copenhagen climate conference

World leaders are abandoning the Bella Center like rats off a sinking ship after declaring that a deal has been reached at the Copenhagen climate change conference. Two years ago at the Bali climate conference, it was agreed that the signatories to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol would finalize a binding global treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the Copenhagen meeting. That goal was put aside even before the meeting here got started. In turn, the Copenhagen conference was supposed to resolve major issues like the mid-term reduction commitments by developed countries, how to monitor those commitments, and how to fund adaptation and mitigation in poor countries. Now those goals have been put off to the indefinite future.

Although the detailed language is not yet available, the broad outlines are apparently these:

(1)   The agreement sets a target of no more than two degrees Celsius for the increase in global temperatures.

(2)   The agreement sets the goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent by 2050 with the developed countries cutting their emissions by 80 percent.

(3)   Going into the Copenhagen conference, the goal was to adopt a binding treaty by next meeting in Mexico City in 2010. That goal has been dropped and no date set for a future deal.

(4)   With regard to transparency—the big sticking point between China and the U.S.—countries are supposed to provide information tracking their efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions, but the guidelines for monitoring those activities are to be negotiated later.  

Ignore the spin that the politicians try to put on it: In any meaningful sense, the Copenhagen climate conference collapsed.

Ronald Bailey is Reason's science correspondent. His book Liberation Biology: The Scientific and Moral Case for the Biotech Revolution is available from Prometheus Books.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Punt!

  • ||

    It's funny that the more money a publication gets from oil companies the more it denies that man-made global warming exists...

  • Pet Tenner. ||

    I don't get any money from oil companies but I don't even believe weather exists.

  • ||

    It is difficult to get "Reason" to understand man-made global warming, when the size of the donations depends upon them not understanding it.

  • ||

    Please don't feed the troll. crayon comes here because she/he/it has an inferiority complex and she/he/it has been humiliated by a libertarian and does not have the intellect to recover from this humiliating experience in the capacity that a normal individual would possess.

  • ||

    Humiliated by a libertarian?
    That's like being bitten by roadkill.

  • Matches||

    Time to burn down the crayon!

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    I thought the size of donations to Reason determined how fluffy the articles would be towards the donors... according to crayon, that is.

  • ||

    crayon, crayon, crayon: You didn't read my articles did you? Usually I try to remain polite, but now you're just willfully lying.

  • ||

    "Ignore the spin that the politicians try to put on it: In any meaningful sense, the Copenhagen climate conference collapsed."

    Do you really consider this to be a truthful statement or more of a Fox News "truthiness" statement?

    And you do have a tone of Schadenfreude in your article, which implies your willful lack of understanding of the issues.

  • Hank||

    Crayon,

    You are a woefully obnoxious, incorrigible fuckface of epic proportions. Your contrarian, deeply flawed perception of Ron and most of the blog posts on this site indicate one of two things, or both: either you are a fucking 12 year-old or desperately need to resume or implement whatever pharmaceutical regiment appropriate for your personality disorder.

    Regardless of your erroneous assertion of a "Schadenfreude tone" in Ron's article, the contributors to Reason have been quite transparent about having personal opinions on the topics for which they provide commentary.

    The "truthiness" of Foxnews? As compared to the "truthiness" of GE/MSNBC or any other one of the very left-leaning MSM channels.

    Reading your ill-informed retarded commments on this site are slightly amusing, but you being a rude prick to Mr. Baily is undoubtedly pissing off most of the people who appreciate his reporting (and opinion). Your donor conspiracy theory is sheer stupidity. Get your fucking head out of your ass and at the very least try and show the man a little respect. What kind of piece of shit has the sole purpose of contributing nothing but contrarian bullshit to one of the few publications that exercises some objectivity?

  • ||

    HAHAHAH!
    OBJECTIVITY!

  • JCS||

    These conferences are all about saving the world from "so-called global warming?" I personally don't want to be saved. I would be very content to burn in hell!

  • ||

    It's funny that the more money "scientific" organizations get from governments the more they produce the science that politicians want produced.

  • ||

    And how they refuse to post online the list of donors to their non-profit "Reason" foundation.
    Oh, wait.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    *yawn*

  • ||

    Well, it makes sense:
    Reason had an AIDS denier as their science writer and now they have man-made global warming deniers instead.
    The more things change...

  • GasFromTheAss||

    Crayon,

    Up your ass with Mobil gas - happy motoring!

  • hep||

    They had an AIDS denier? Really, who? As for the AWG denier, I recall that Bailey was skeptical for the first 2 or 3 years (denier you could say) but then came around to accepting it when some new data came in. I haven't followed this site on a consistent basis but I think his position (correct me if I'm wrong) is not that AWG isn't a reality, but that tanking the world's economies, to reverse warming, is not only a bad idea, it won't do much, for a variety of reasons, to actually reduce any climate changing trends.

  • ||

    He's talking about Mike Fumento.
    He is NOT an AIDS denier.

    He does believe some weird shit about how only gays get AIDS and only a subset of what is called AIDS is real.

    tl;dr version

    Mike Fumento says only gays get AIDS.

  • not crayon||

    Let's see some facts crayon. Care to mention any?

  • not crayon||

    You're right, noone should have any vested interests in anything, and be totally subject to a flapping breeze, oh wait, that's the U.S. Congress, my bad.

  • Tony||

    Yeah because politicians want to spend their time trying to pass monumental and controversial legislation and are willing to pay off scientists in order to do this incredibly difficult and politically challenging job.

    In reality, scientists are pleading with hesitant governments to do something and have been for a long time.

  • ||

    Yeah because politicians want to spend their time trying to pass monumental and controversial legislation tax legislation and are willing to pay off scientists in order to do this incredibly difficult and politically challenging job.

    FIFY.

    And obviously they do.

  • ||

    Politicians love spending their time passing monumental and controversial legislations. Their hesitation is usually due to 1) Passing said legislation would piss off whoever is contributing to their political fund, or 2) They haven't positioned themselves to reap any benefits from the legislation yet.

    Once they are positioned to benefit from the sweeping effects of a piece of legislation, you typically see all hesitation vaporize.

  • not crayon||

    Perhaps if you were around about 15k years ago, you could have saved Lake Bonneville, which surely would be a spectacular boating spot today.

  • ||

    But Hitlary said she is giving 100 billion a year to the developing countries by 2020, and she can really do that. In the meantime, I called up the developing countries and told them I am giving them large chunks of real estate on the moon, because I can really do that also. Hitlary is in charge of handing out billions of US dollars to whoever she wants, and I own the moon, all is good. The polar bears are saved.

  • ||

    "Some would say that the Earth is our moon. But that would belittle the name of our moon, which is 'The Moon.'"

  • ||

    What are you doing up there Epi? Just remember, I own the moon and my lunar council has just voted to pass new emissions standards on the moon. The rare lunar crater dust moth is endangered. All carbon lunar credits must be purchased from me. Otherwise, you must return to the Earth immediately where Obama and Hitlary will resume total control of your life.

  • ||

    I've gone to the moon for the weekend. But here on the moon, our weekends are so advanced, they encompass the entire week.

  • ||

    The loonies will soon commence use of their electromagnetic catapult!

  • ||

    Our god is a god of vengeance, and horror

  • ||

    Please provide me your secret to advanced weekends, and I will spare you the carbon tax. On earth here, we are striving backwards towards the stone age.

  • ||

    Hitlary!
    That's so punny!

  • JoshInHB||

    "Hitlary is in charge of handing out billions of US dollars to whoever she wants,"

    And at least 4 years AFTER she is out of office.

  • ed||

    CNN was all over this triumph of nonbinding promises. Obama made a stumbling little speech. We'll do blah blah blah, unless we don't. Huzzah!

  • ||

    Threadwinner!

    LOL at this.

  • ||

    But...he said "let me be clear" and "unprecedented" and "the time for talking has ended." Are you suggesting he's insincere?

  • D.A. Ridgely||

    I propose that if anyone who says "the time for talk has ended" continues to talk, it should be legal (if not mandatory) to throw shoes at him.

  • ed||

    There are those who say the time has come. This is unprecedented. But at the end of the day, there will be pushback.

  • JoshInHB||

    Don't forget

    "The science is settled"
    "This is the moment when the waters began to recede"

  • adams||

    Who was the first president to say, "Let me be clear" or a variation of it? I know Nixon was fond of saying "Let me be 'perfectly' clear" which was always a run-up to a whopping lie.

  • ||

    From at least an outward appearance climategate has almost nothing to do with the failure of Copenhagen.

    Anyone think different? If so why?

  • ||

    No, I agree, it had nothing to do with it. If it did that would mean that this bunch of ass clowns considered reasonable evidence and logic. So that is off the table. The reason why it did not succeed is obvious. When you put a bunch of losers together who have no collective substance and expect them to accomplish world altering feats(whether good or bad), what do you expect the outcome to be besides total failure to meet any objective.

  • ||

    Then there is the Monbiot Moonbat contigent. Or was this deconstructed while I was off skiing?

  • Monbiot||

    Where did you find snow on this parched, desert world we inhabit? Capitalists destroyed the world years ago!

  • MNG||

    I love it. If only they considered reasonable evidence and logic they would have to conclude that the shenanigans of less than a dozen scientists whose findings indicate AGW is for realdiscredits the work of hundreds or thousands of others with similar findings...

    What community college or back-of-National-Review-Home-Study-Program did you study logic at?

  • ||

    Sorry to disappoint you MNG, but the research dept I work with is one of the worlds foremost in recipient of grant money. I will guarantee you it is in the top 10, Mr. big mouth. And my degree is in computer science, not political science, which remains an oxymoron.

  • MNG||

    Sweeping the floors or fetching coffee at a research dept doesn't count.

    When someone says "my degree is in..." they 95% of the time have a bachelors degree, the new high school degree. If they had a graduate degree they would say that.

    Besides, no degree necessary to see how terrible your logic is. See the original post of mine and try to refute it smarty-pants.

  • ||

    Actually MNG, I develop software solutions for the IRB and other University departments. You see, I actually did something with my degree that is beneficial to someone as well as providing a good income for myself. I also own 40% of a small business that is profitable. What do you do MNG? You see MNG, just having a degree whether pre or post doc is of no value at all if you do not do something with it. The only terrible logic here is you trying to argue that a degree somehow equates to intelligence, which it certainly does not. A degree only provides one with more knowledge in a specific area, at least in theory and is not proof of ones intelligence or value. Anyone who goes on message boards and claims to have superior intelligence to others because they hold a doctorate degree is self delusional and usually tormented by some sort of inferiority complex that makes them behave in such a childish and simpleton manner.

  • ||

    Hyperion is not a secretary.

    Hyperion develops advanced coffee-serving solutions.

    I bet he works for a public university, thus living off money that was forcibly taken and coerced from taxpayers.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    Goddamn right, Hyperion!

  • ||

    If only they considered reasonable evidence and logic they would have to conclude that the shenanigans of less than a dozen scientists whose findings indicate AGW

    You don't understand the scientific method.

    Data is fabricated. Models are doctored. Doctored models still fail.

    AGW isn't even a theory. It's a hypothesis that has no proof whatsoever.

    And CRU isn't the only place that wouldn't show data. GISS won't either, it's just we haven't had a whistle blower there yet although there's lots of evidence they are making it up. They doctor datasets retroactively. They had to get rid of the dustbowl, just like they had to get rod of the MWP.

    Your problem is you had nothing but appeal to authority and now the authority is shown to be full of shit.

    You have a problem. The burden is on the warmist religion to show proof.

  • JoshInHB||

    "When you put a bunch of losers together who have no collective substance and expect them to accomplish world altering feats(whether good or bad), what do you expect the outcome to be besides total failure to meet any objective."

    Hey, are you calling Algore, Leo DiCaprio, Nancy Piglosi and Brad Pitt losers?

    Don't you realize they're all esteemed climate scientists.

  • ||

    The conference was called off because of a cheesy poof shortage. After much argument, it was decided that it was the US's turn to provide cheesy poofs, and sanctions were imposed for our failure to provide them. The US tried to counter with the argument that they brought the cheesy poofs last time, when France in a moment of lucid clarity announced "Of course it's the US's turn! It is always the US's turn to provide the cheesy poofs". It was later determined that this unexpected honesty was due in large part to a missed dosage of Aripiprazole, for which the French delegate apologized profusely and stated that it would never happen again.

    The conference attendees then watched video of Al Gore's latest trip to the Arctic circle. It consisted mainly of footage of him trying to hug polar bears, which were promptly shot by his staff whenever they showed signs of aggression. His summation of this trip was that he is now in doubt that global warming exists due to the fact that "It's like a kajillion degrees below zero up there". His other observation that polar bears are really big, and get angry when you try to hug them was determined by the entire committee to have no scientific merit.

    During the video viewing, the Canadians and the Chinese became restless, declaring they could not watch a video without refreshments. This brought the whole cheesy poofs subject back up, and the conference disintegrated into angry shouting. Al Gore decided he'd had enough of this crap anyway, and is now pursuing an alternative to the internet. The prototype appears to be an empty box, but he asserts that once the technology is perfected it will repeat back everything you say verbatim. He further predicts that it will be a revolutionary device once installation in every American home has been mandated.

    Cheers!

    I figured this would be at least as interesting as the real reason.

  • Sam Grove||

    The bigger the committee, the less productive it becomes.

    The COP committee may have passed into negative territory.

  • MNG||

    This is spot on. Who in the world could have thought that any agreement could come from such a sausage making enterprise? When that many diplomats get to work on something I think it is safe to say we are all lucky they did NOT come to any agreement. Any agreement would have been worse than the cap and trade monstrosity that the House passed...

  • ||

    Who in the world...Greenpeace, NRDC, WWF, Pew, Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists ....

  • ¢||

    Anyone think different? If so why?

    It gave Russia and China something to "ORLY?" with if they had to. They didn't have to. Seemingly. Who knows?

  • ||

    I hope there are cameras at Andrews Air Force Base so we can see Barry come back with No Warming in Our Time.

    With him arriving via Carbon Pig One in an unusually virulent snowstorm would be a kind of techno-Kafka moment.

  • Al Gore||

    Obama must have the ability to fly on Carbon Pig One, as must I have the ability to get into gas-powered armored limousines which only get single-digit mileage.

    It's all for your own good... and it's for the children. Don't ever doubt that... or eventually we'll have you arrested for heresy.

  • ||

    I spoke too soon.

    This is, at the least, a co-equal threadwinning comment.

  • skeet||

    What, did Obama appoint you as threadwinning Czar?

  • Dept. of Homeland Security||

    We're watching you, skeet.

  • Paul||

    President Hopenchangin said that they were a rousing success!

  • ||

    He also believes that other things he has done as POTUS have been a success. What does that tell us?

  • jk||

    That tells us that doing nothing and believing you deserve everything is the new American dream.

  • ||

    That's new to you? Have you been in a coma since the 70s?

  • ||

    So another "unprecedented" UN-sponsored conference ends up being a very, very expensive gabfest with nothing to show for it. Who could have predicted it? Who?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xes0F36eTJA

    I hope the Copenhagen sex workers had a decent payday.

  • ||

    "I hope the Copenhagen sex workers had a decent payday."

    They had a great day! They received most of their business from Chad, Tony, and crayon, all who had sex for the very first time!

  • ||

    HURR DURR HURR HURR

    WHAT, SEX WITH CHAD AND TONY DON'T COUNT?

    HURR DURR HURR HURRRRRR DURR

  • ||

    Well, hetero sex for the first time. I'm pretty sure they've done some 'batin in their room in their mother's basement. ;)

  • ||

    LMAO, I am sure, but they had to use their mothers tweezers and and it kept slipping off, it was really hard times, why don't we feel sorry for them...

  • ||

    HAHAHAH!
    PENIS JOKES!

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Jealous, crayon?

  • ||

    HAHAHAH!
    FREUDIAN!

  • ||

    So, I have seen news feeds with Hugey Bear Chavez, Hitlary, and Odumbo. My question is, where do the Whore-O-Peon politicians stand on this? Aren't they supposed to be developed countries? Are we the only developed country now? After all, this climate scam conference is in the domain of the Whore-O-Peons.

  • ||

    I'm sure their waiting in the hopes they can free-ride on Hilary's largess; it's been working like a dream on the US defense budget for 60 years or so, and they might be able to keep buying votes with 'free' stuff for a couple of more years.

  • Bill Clinton||

    Hillary has a large ass, which is why I like doughy chicks like Monica Lewinsky.

  • ||

    You mean Hilary's large ass? Well, really, it doesn't look that good. Even the black guys I know think it is just too much thigh and not enough ass, and well, she's just ugly and kinda gross...

  • ||

    Let me guess:
    some of your best friends are black, right?

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Attempted race-baiting, crayon? Is there no level you won't sink lower than?

  • ||

    When Hyperion writes "Even the black guys I know", you know he's lying.

    Libertarian ideology:
    freedom for the white slave owners.

  • ||

    Right crayon, I don't know any black guys, never have. This is always the sort of drivel that libtards resort to because they have nothing else.

  • ||

    Libertarian ideology:
    freedom for the white slave owners.

    If that were the case we'd all be democrats.

  • ||

    Nope. Don't have any best friends that are black. I don't choose my friends based on color and unlike the typical libtard I don't need a token black friend to prove I am not a racist. Your attempt at labeling all Libertarians as racist is only more proof that you have no credibility left at all.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    It's one of their go-to tactics, Hyperion. And, of course, there's no such thing as a racist Democrat.

  • ||

    HAHAHAHAH!
    WHITE PEOPLE!

  • MNG||

    Hey Moron, when you live in the US the news feeds will tend to focus on our represenatives, or our boogeyman of the moment...

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    What about substance, though?

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    Substance? Ha ha ha ha, good one, Libertarian Guy.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Yeah, I knew as soon as I hit "enter" that asking for substance in reporting on our elected officials was a real knee-slapper.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Copenhagen Climate Conference Collapses

    If only... *sigh*

  • iowahawk||

    Gentlemen, I have a piece of paper!

    We shall have cooling in our time!

  • ||

    Interviewer: What do you all grow here?

    Farmer: Buckwheat and radishes.

    I: Oh, you make a lot of money on those, do you?

    F: On the buckwheat, yes. On the radishes, no. It's a loser, always has been.

    I: So why do you grow them?

    F: Oh you got to. You gotta grow radishes.

    I: Why?

    F: Well to keep the wolverines off your land, dummy!

    I: You have wolverines on your land?

    F: No! The radishes keep 'em off! You ever seen a wolverine?

    I: No, I haven't.

    F: Me either! Them radishes sure work, don't they?

  • Specious ||

    I like your style.

  • ||

    "2. The agreement sets the goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent by 2050 with the developed countries cutting their emissions by 80 percent."
    Pikers!
    I say set the goal at 100% for everybody. And my plan to accomplish this is every bit as realistic as the one to cut it by 50-80%!

  • Binky||

    Why is that melting glacier wearing a dunce cap?

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    That should be on Gore's noggin for lying about the entire northern ice cap melting in the near future.

  • ||

    The Boracle could never lie! Haven't you heard his beautiful poetry? Well I did! and, oh, ok, I sort of well, laughed my ass off.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    The more-powerful the politician, the bigger and more plentiful the lies.

  • skeet||

    The more powerful the politician, the more pungent the poetry.

  • Al Gore||

    That's why it's called "Al"-literation.

    Duh.

  • ||

    Did his poetry read like this?

    "Oh freddled gruntbuggly?thy micturations are to me/As plurdled gabbleblotchis on a lurgid bee. Groop I implore thee, my foonting turlingdromes. And hooptiously drangle me with crinkly bindlewurdles,/ Or I will rend thee in the gobberwarts with my blurglecruncheon, see if I don't!"

    Al Gore might be a Vogon mole. He does have the intellect and personality...hmmm.

  • Joette||

    For next year's Peace Prize, I nominate Copenhagen's sex workers. They probably accomplished more in this last 10 days than all the bloviators combined.

  • db||

    Haven't you heard? The Peace Prize is no longer to be given for actual past accomplishments, only unfulfilled promises.

  • ||

    The real shame here is that people, on their own, are doing what people do; adapting to changing circumstances using local knowledge to accomplish whatever local remediation is required.
    But "people" don't have PR departments, nor orchestrated "arrivals" with press conferences, so the accomplishments will be co-opted by the politicos as proof that their hare-brained schemes have had some effect.
    The answer is obviously what might be called education, but it seems there exists a large percentage of the population who still believe 'mommy will take care of them'. And give them their stuff for free.

  • ||

    "but it seems there exists a large percentage of the population who still believe 'mommy will take care of them'. And give them their stuff for free.
    reply to this"

    Examples: Chad, Tony, crayon, MNG

  • Hank||

    I will gladly admit that the O man is a pretty affable character despite what an eminent disaster he is as President and bald-faced liar (even the libs were commenting on the asinine absurdity of the country going bankrupt without this health care bill statement). I can't figure out what creeps me out more: the Christian rock enthusiasts I see every 30 seconds on television or the glazed over People's Temple like members of any crowd at an Obama event. BUT, as well as Obama can read off of a teleprompter (the same old tired speech over and over), I get the distinct impression the Chinese and Indians aren't quite as impressed as the liberal fruitcakes in this country or the Hasslehoff, Michael Jackson Euroqueers in Europe. Poor old Barry, now even Hugo has turned on him. Imagine how pissed off Sean Penn must be.

  • Rich||

    the Christian rock enthusiasts I see every 30 seconds on television

    I gots to know, Hank -- what channel(s) are you watching?

    (If "Christian rock enthusiasts" is slang for something, please enlighten me.)

  • Hank||

    First of all, I was embellishing a bit. If you are a Christian rock enthusiasts, rock on brother. But, those commercials are on every channel at some point (I really don't know which channels - I am a bit of political junkie: I watch all of them, plus science channel, history, discovery, local, espn, and I admit, reluctantly, cspan and cspan2). I had to switch to satellite recently and don't have a dvr anymore; I use to watch zero commercials. And I really don't watch the tube much anymore anyway. Luckily, I have to purchase 900 channels to watch the 10 or so I like.

    Specifically, I was talking about the compilation gospel rock (I guess you would call it that). You know, twenty-somethings, eyes closed, swaying back and forth mouthing the words to "The Lord is my King" or something like that. Sorry, buddy, it creeps me out. I am agnostic or athiest, or put it this way, I am not the least bit religious.

    For all you religious rockers, rock on and God bless you. Really, to each their own. I'm not sure what "Christian rock enthusiast" could be "slang" for. How about Christian rock fan? It was a comment on, in my opinion (obviously), zealotry or fanaticism. Someone blowing themselves up for Allah makes me a little uncomfortable too.

  • bj||

    Dahooood, whoa, like chill to the communion swill.. lay back to Blood of the Lambs "Nailed three times to the cross if you want me."

  • Rich||

    "Nailed three times to the cross if you want me."

    Now *that* is a good pick-up line.

  • Old Mexican||

    This one fizzled - on to the next "crisis"!


    (The tax consumers will not relent. They will find a new pretext for their vampire ways...)

  • BeesInTheBrain||

    The agreement sets a target of no more than two degrees Celsius for the increase in global temperatures.
    And thus we hit the crux of the problem. In order to meet this goal, CO2 has to be the sole cause of global warming. If other natural factors are playing a significant part then it is impossible to meet this goal.

  • ||

    I dunno, couldn;t we deploy a big space umbrella? There ought to be quite a few jobs in that. http://www.halfbakery.com/idea/Space_20Umbrella

  • Old Mexican||

    If other natural factors are playing a significant part then it is impossible to meet this goal.


    .
    .
    Bingo!

    But you *know* the Warmist will never accept that a natural phenomenon IS a natural phenomenon and call for even more stringent restrictions on emissions... kind of like dropping more virgins to the roaring volcano, once realized the previous set of virgins did not do the trick - that's how the Warmists think.

  • Chad||

    It would help if you had ANY significant evidence of what "natural phenomenon" is causing warming.

  • ||

    Significant evidence of "natural phenomena" causing warming:

    1. Solar activity. (As evidenced by observed warming on other planets and observed changes in sunspots.)

    2. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (and to a lesser extent the El Nino-Southern Oscillation).

    3. Milankovitch cycles (probably the most dramatic factor influencing ice-ages and warm periods).

    4. Greenhouse effect (not all of which is anthropogenic...).

    5. Albedo effect (again, not all of which is anthropogenic... ice caps and glaciers were receding long before the industrial age).

    6. The Urban Heat Island effect (which is not 'natural' per se, but is a source of warming unrelated to emmisions and while local in nature is extrapolated globally when averaged into temperature data.)

  • Chad||

    Russ R.|12.20.09 @ 8:57AM|#
    Significant evidence of "natural phenomena" causing warming:

    1. Solar activity. (As evidenced by observed warming on other planets and observed changes in sunspots.)

    Holy dumb, Batman....we are stuck in a prolonged solar MINIMUM, setting RECORD TEMPS, and here you are blaming it on the sun! The planetary excuse has also been repeatedly debunked as the cherry-picking that it is. It also defies physics and ignores massive uncertainties and alternative explanations.

    Milankovitch cycles do not operate on the time scale we are talking about. PDO helps describe some of the variability, but doesn't describe the trend.

    http://www.skepticalscience.co.....lation.htm

    Non-anthroponegic greenhouse effect? What gas is doing it then, and what is its "natural" source? What was the natural rate of ice cap loss before the last few decades? Why has it massively accelerated all of a sudden? And your "urban heat island effect", or more more broadly, the actual heat released by our activities, doesn't even add up to a speck of dust on the butt of the fly that buzzing around you. It is a tiny fraction of the energy received from the sun, and makes no appreciable difference in world temperatures.

    Please, point me to the peer-reviewed science that shows that any of these has a strong correlation to observed temperatures, and show me the theories that correlate the observed magnitudes with the observed ones. Also, I need the theories that decribe how these sources of warming are consistent with things such as stratospheric cooling.

    Good luck.

  • ||

    Satellite data shows no long term warming trend, so your premise of "unprecedented" warming is a little premature. In fact, looking at the large spike that preceded the medieval warm period, the only thing about the warming that's unprecedented is that it deals with the measurements of the land based instrumental record, which has been fudged repeatedly to show a warming trend.

    It also appears that you misunderstand physics: If the globe is warming, the stratosphere will also show warming. Carbon dioxide isn't magically attuned to radiating heat in only one direction... so it's rich that you talk about defying physics. The models themselves predict warming at this level of the atmosphere, and a number of recent peer reviewed papers point out the fact that the warming here doesn't match up with the models.

  • ||

    Here is a website with ~ 500 links to peer-reviewed articles that support natural interpretations of climate variation:
    http://www.populartechnology.n.....rting.html

  • ||

    Or, conversely, it could wind up being impossible to fail to meet this goal, even if we all bought 73 Mustangs and ran them 24 hours a day.

  • MNG||

    But you *know* the Warmist will never accept that a natural phenomenon IS a natural phenomenon...as long as people who know about this kind of thing continue to say the evidence points to it not being a natural phenomena.

    Fixed that for ya OM.

    Now you can go on telling us how your amateur, arm chair science is better than all those pesky well published PhDs in the fancy labs with all the cutting edge equipment...Sure, you're right, they're wrong...

  • ||

    And your armchair science experience is what?
    My 'armchair' has degrees in mechanical engineering (with lots of physics, thermodynamics & heat transfer, and math, including simulations) plus a masters in computer science. The view from my skeptical armchair is pretty good.

    P.S. Most of those hundred and thousands of AGW-related articles take AGW for granted, and are not independently confirming it. Polar bear studies (problematic anyway as it turns out) have zero bearig on the alleged extent of the 'A' in AGW.

  • ||

    Sorry, newscaper, MNG has a degree in .... wait .... melodramatic music playing in the background.... violins ... angels singing .... Political Science! OMG! All hail the MNG! RFLMAO!!!

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    I know half a dozen poli-sci grads... they ARE pretty good pizza-delivery people, though.

  • netsec||

    I have a BS in Political Science (no kidding) and I'm a Marine. I have only met 1 person in my life who was actually doing something political with a poli sci degree.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Well, I must've ran into the poli-sci grads who weren't able to parlay a college education into big-bucks jobs...

    Oddly enough, I've ran into about the same number of psychology majors who just can't seem to get it together.

  • MNG||

    I don't think a person with a BS in Poli Sci is going to make much money.

    That's why I got a doctorate.

    I'm not rich but I do pretty well, and my job is pretty cushy (I've said what I do a million times but to head off the inane and irrelevant questions let me sum: I do statistical research for a private firm, analyzing demographic and commuting patterns mostly for government agencies and for-profit businesses).

    Again, what I do or have attained educationally is as irrelevant to this debate as how big my johnson is (it's huge, and no I'm not going to let you see it, to head off The Libertarian Guy's questions). It's not my qualifications that are relevant to the climate debate, it's the qualifications of all those experts that disagree with you guys.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    I have a dick, MNG. I don't need to see other ones, nor do I wish to.

    You might ask Barney Frank, though.

  • db||

    I doubt you're doing actual "statistical" research, without a Ph.D. in, you know, Statistics. Which, you know, is a lot of advanced mathematics. While there are some nice liberal arts colleges with decent mathematics departments, something tells me you didn't, you know, take any of those courses.

  • ||

    Make heap wampum with Ethnic Studies degree.

  • ||

    it's the qualifications of all those experts that disagree with you guys.

    Well there's lots of well qualified scientists who think AGW is bunk.

    The difference between them and your guys is your guys felt the need to lie, fabricate evidence, and destroy data.

    You have nothing.

  • Engineeering ain't science||

    During my early undergraduate days studying Electrical Engineering I noticed that engineering and science, though related, are VERY different. I never really liked the engineering, so I switched majors.

    Now that I do science for a living, I find that engineers are far more likely to over-estimate their understanding of science than any other group.

    This says nothing of newscaper, in particular, it is just something I have noticed.

  • db||

    We engineers do, however, have a common basis in the tools of science--mathematics, physics, chemistry, thermodynamics, etc., which is more than most liberal arts grads can say. The methodology of science and engineering is similar, as well. Engineers aren't simple tinkerers, as some scientists seem to think. The fact of the matter is that the engineering tools don't work if you don't understand their underpinnings, which were determined by scientists operating within the scientific method.

  • MNG||

    A masters degree in CS, OMG! If I need my keyboard fixed the next time I'm wrapping up a research project I'll call down to IT for you.

    But I'm no expert in the hard sciences. Good thing then that I'm on the side that agrees with the folks that are. You are on the other side.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    That was one of the most condescending and stupid things I've ever read from you MNG.

    And here you said just a few comments ago that it's not about your Ph.D (which btw, in Poli Sci, I consider a detriment, rather than a point in your favor) but about your arguments. Riiiiiighhhhhhhhht.

    Maybe it's just time for you to STFU dude.

  • ||

    Last I looked a CS degree required real math.

    Whereas a PhD in Polisci requires regurgitating statist propaganda into a thesis.

  • ||

    From what I've seen with Harvard geniuses (many, many Masters degrees and beyond) running Wall Street, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the government...maybe a degree with pedigree is more kiss-of-death than recommendation...

    Besides, if we quantify mental acumen in such a metered way, Dubya's a fucking genius...he has a degree from Yale AND Harvard!

  • ||

    Agree with you man, it's just so funny to see MNG use his PS degree on here to declare that he is so much smarter than everyone else. Almost always a sure sign that the person is suffering from some sort of inferiority complex.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Liberals love to do that... all the while claiming to be above the act of elitism.

  • MNG||

    Again, my degree is irrelevant because I'm agreeing with the guys who have the relevant degrees, experience, etc.

    So what I'm saying is that THEIR degrees, experience, etc., make them experts and you can't measure up, so pardon me if I think they are right and you are nuts.

  • juris imprudent||

    Cool, so if you agree with the Pope, you are on the side of unassailable authority about God. You go MNG!

  • Sean W. Malone||

    "I'm not arguing from authority about myself because I'm arguing from authority citing people with relevant degrees in climate science"

    So if I cite Richard Lindzen... then what?

  • MNG||

    Dude, it's you guys that are obsessed with my degree, which IS almost a sure sign that a person is suffering from some sort of inferiority complex.

    Lots of guys on H&R have mentioned they have doctorates. RC Dean has a law degree from Harvard. Someone Who Doesn't Want to Lose His Job (where did he go recently?) has math PhD. Etc.

    I've never claimed my degree gives me some greater insight on global warming. I have claimed the degrees of all the experts in the relevant science do give them greater insight than the arm-chair junior scientists on this blog with whom they disagree.

  • New Guy||

    What I object to is the idea that there is a scientific elite and the science is settled and no one is allowed to ask questions or challenge it. This is not the way science works. I will agree that many of the skeptics have not looked into the science or understood it but the same is true for many of the AGW believers. I have a B.S. in Chemistry and a Ph.D. in Biochemistry and try to stay well read on a variety of topics and disciplines. I have only read a very small portion of the literature on GW but I have tried to start with Hansen's 1988 Science paper and read major review articles from Science and work my way up to the present. Maybe once the semester is over at my university I can do a little more reading over my break. I have also tried to read the summaries of the ICP reports. The climate problem is one of the most complicated anyone has ever tried to look at and the modeling is trying to model the entire planet. There are huge error bars associated with all the raw data (which the scientists do take into account) and obviously the models are simply that - models. We can not model much simpler things like hurricanes that accurately although we are getting better. So what I object to most is the idea that we know exactly what will happen and by what date and that if we don't do something this year we are doomed. In short, I am most skeptical about the most dire predictions. If you read the IPC reports, we can't really say for sure if sea level is rising faster once you take error bars into account, and once you realize that you can find other ten year stretches where the slope of sea-level rise was just as high as the last ten years.
    I also find it irritating that only now that they believe in AGW some environmentalists now realize that nuclear is better but for the last 30 years they have been preventing it and thus they are partially responsible for AGW themselves. And if we had cheaper electricity, we might have a slightly larger percent of electric cars on the road (to head off the argument that 'tricity' generation is only 35% of our power use. Besides, the only power source this argument is used against is nuclear. It's not like you will have solar cars or windmills on top of your car so the same argument applies to these sources. A last peeve of mine (told my wife I would be home soon and have not done a damn thing yet!) is people who insist that 2005 proves GW causes hurricanes (I live in N.O. and got flooded in 2005) first don't listen to a good fraction (don't know what this is, guess is 70%, plus even IPC did not claim this) despite us being in an active part of the 30+/- 10 year cycle. But then the same people who will use this or a hot summer as evidence of GW will say a cold summer or winter or inactive hurricane year is just "weather" Well if it is weather when it disagrees with GW it is weather when it agrees as well. You have to look at 10-30 year trends.

    Peace out.

  • ||

    No, it is you that is obsessed with your degree. You go on websites bragging about it and claiming that a degree is proof of superior intelligence, which only proves that you have a problem.

  • ||

    Dude, it's you guys that are obsessed with my degree,

    You keep bringing it up. You're the one who can't understand the science and so believe one group of scientists, the ones who are known to have lied and fabricated data and destroyed data. The ones who admit their models don't work.

    Chad at least has a rudimentary understanding. You're just spewing the pap you were fed. Which makes you well suited to a career in PS.

    Personally I think a PS degree is nearly as pathetic as a sociology degree, so I can assure you I am not obsessed. I'm just amused at a ignoramus who presumes to comprehension by proxy.

    And by ignoramus I mean just that. You are ignorant. You may be capable of being otherwise, but that's to be seen.

    Of course my suspicion is people that are don't get degrees like PS.

  • bert||

    like I believe in natural phenomena.

  • ||

    Mac Arthur's Park is melting in the dark,
    All the sweet Green icing flowing down...

    Someone left the cake out in the rain;

    I don't think that I can take it,
    'Cause it took so long to bake it,
    and I'll never have that recipe again,

    Oh, NOOOoooooooo!

  • Tholan||

    One thing this conference did do is add another log onto the "AGW Alarmists == Communist Sympathizer" fire.

    Thank you Chavez. You continue to astound and amazing. Hopefully the next time there is a global assembly of some kind, the ghost in the room will be yours.

  • Tholan||

    amazing = amaze ? that's unpossible.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    You forgot "AGW deniers = Holocaust deniers"...

  • Flatulator||

    As I was saying when I saw the report on Chavez and his "sulfur" comments about 0bama...

    "He who smelt it, dealt it!"

  • Mike M.||

    I agree with the wag here who said that this annual Copenhagen pilgrimage is really the Hajj for communists.

    There's a whole bunch of ululating, flailing about, and walking around in circles, and it's a stupid, pointless waste of time and money.

  • ||

    Wasn't Bailey supposed to post something about see ice? I never caught that.

  • Teddy Kennedy||

    I used to see ice, when I was still alive and drinking...

  • ||

    tk welge: Yes. I apologize for the delay. Events took over and I haven't had time to write it yet. Never fear, I will get around it soon - it's just so darned interesting.

  • LarryA||

    The agreement sets a target of no more than two degrees Celsius for the increase in global temperatures.

    No problem. Just cancel the conferences.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    If they REALLY gave half a shit about global warming, they would've stayed home, shut off the lights, and put plastic bags over their heads.

    Oh, wait... those are bad for Mother Earth. But in a way, it IS like recycling.

  • Dept. of Homeland Security||

    Fantasizing about politicians committing suicide is a federal crime. Prepare for re-education camp, terrorist scumbag.

  • ||

    Let me just mention my disappointment that neither the Danish cops nor the UN goons arrested Mugabe. Aren't there a fistful of international warrants out on that murdering scumbag?

    -jcr

  • jester||

    The cops were eating Danishes in a Dunkin Danish franchise.

    The UN goons of course applaud Mugabe. They have lots in common.

    And really, it is the job of Zimbabweans to remove him. No one elses job.

    But I share your disdain for him.

  • ||

    I see now. Crayon gets his name from what they allow him to write his posts with. Where he lives they won't allow him to have anything sharp or pointy.

  • vulgar moralist||

    The summit collapsed from internal contradiction, as they used to say. The moral case against global warming rested on traditional Western ideals of equity and public-mindedness. Yet by buying into AGW, the Western leaders at Copenhagen made these ideals seem hollow, if not monstrous.

    Failure was predictable from the ensuing politics of cultural despair. There were no guiding principles on which to come together, no way forward, no faith in anything if one excepts the nihilists in the snow.

    See "The politics of cultural despair":

    http://vulgarmorality.wordpres.....despair-2/

  • ||

    I think that history will note in particular, that China saved the world from a global, communist government.

    -jcr

  • ||

    Good riddance. Tell you what, I will allow the sovereignty of may nation to be invaded and my country to be blackmailed when the IPCC, its scientists and the UN can show me that their models are accurate and that climate change agreement is not for politcal reasons. In other words, not anytime soon.

  • ||

    Hey, climate change deniers: The fact that I'm making billions on Green technology investments in the free market is proof positive that man-made global warming is for real:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ear.....naire.html

    Jealous much, fucktards?

  • ||

    Fuck it. I'm flying my fleet of private jets to check out my oil field investments:

    http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=468

    Fuck you losers.

  • ||

    my post was marked as spam ? What the hell ?

  • abercrombie milano||

    My only point is that if you take the Bible straight, as I'm sure many of Reasons readers do, you will see a lot of the Old Testament stuff as absolutely insane. Even some cursory knowledge of Hebrew and doing some mathematics and logic will tell you that you really won't get the full deal by just doing regular skill english reading for those books. In other words, there's more to the books of the Bible than most will ever grasp. I'm not concerned that Mr. Crumb will go to hell or anything crazy like that! It's just that he, like many types of religionists, seems to take it literally, take it straight...the Bible's books were not written by straight laced divinity students in 3 piece suits who white wash religious beliefs as if God made them with clothes on

  • nike shox||

    is good

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement