toldailytopic: Man made global warming crisis: is the hoax finally dead for good?

[Nathon Detroit]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for December 8th, 2009 10:11 AM

toldailytopic: Man made global warming crisis: is the hoax finally dead for good?

Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Copenhagen climate summit in disarray after 'Danish text' leak Developing countries react furiously to leaked draft agreement that would hand more power to rich nations, sideline the UN's negotiating role and abandon the Kyoto protocol The UN Copenhagen climate talks are in disarray today after developing countries reacted furiously to leaked documents that show world leaders will next week be asked to sign an agreement that hands more power to rich countries and sidelines the UN's role in all future climate change negotiations. The document is also being interpreted by developing countries as setting unequal limits on per capita carbon emissions for developed and developing countries in 2050; meaning that people in rich countries would be permitted to emit nearly twice as much under the proposals. The so-called Danish text, a secret draft agreement worked on by a group of individuals known as "the circle of commitment" – but understood to include the UK, US and Denmark – has only been shown to a handful of countries since it was finalised this week. The agreement, leaked to the Guardian, is a departure from the Kyoto protocol's principle that rich nations, which have emitted the bulk of the CO2, should take on firm and binding commitments to reduce greenhouse gases, while poorer nations were not compelled to act. The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank; would abandon the Kyoto protocol – the only legally binding treaty that the world has on emissions reductions; and would make any money to help poor countries adapt to climate change dependent on them taking a range of actions. The document was described last night by one senior diplomat as "a very dangerous document for developing countries. It is a fundamental reworking of the UN balance of obligations. It is to be superimposed without discussion on the talks". A confidential analysis of the text by developing countries also seen by the Guardian shows deep unease over details of the text. In particular, it is understood to: • Force developing countries to agree to specific emission cuts and measures that were not part of the original UN agreement; • Divide poor countries further by creating a new category of developing countries called "the most vulnerable"; • Weaken the UN's role in handling climate finance; • Not allow poor countries to emit more than 1.44 tonnes of carbon per person by 2050, while allowing rich countries to emit 2.67 tonnes. Developing countries that have seen the text are understood to be furious that it is being promoted by rich countries without their knowledge and without discussion in the negotiations. "It is being done in secret. Clearly the intention is to get [Barack] Obama and the leaders of other rich countries to muscle it through when they arrive next week. It effectively is the end of the UN process," said one diplomat, who asked to remain nameless. Antonio Hill, climate policy adviser for Oxfam International, said: "This is only a draft but it highlights the risk that when the big countries come together, the small ones get hurting. On every count the emission cuts need to be scaled up. It allows too many loopholes and does not suggest anything like the 40% cuts that science is saying is needed." Hill continued: "It proposes a green fund to be run by a board but the big risk is that it will run by the World Bank and the Global Environment Facility [a partnership of 10 agencies including the World Bank and the UN Environment Programme] and not the UN. That would be a step backwards, and it tries to put constraints in developing countries when none were negotiated in earlier UN climate talks." The text was intended by Denmark and rich countries to be a working framework, which would be adapted by countries over the next week. It is particularly inflammatory because it sidelines the UN negotiating process and suggests that rich countries are desperate for world leaders to have a text to work from when they arrive next week. Few numbers or figures are included in the text because these would be filled in later by world leaders. However, it seeks to hold temperature rises to 2C and mentions the sum of $10bn a year to help poor countries adapt to climate change from 2012-15. source

 

[Nick M]

No. The commies in America already claim that even though they doctored research to create a condition that doesn't exist, it still exists.

 

[annabenedetti]

Man made global warming crisis: is the hoax finally dead for good?

I can only hope.

 

[screamin4u2hear]

Regardless of whether or not the crisis is true or not... why does it ever make sense to increase the amount of destruction we do to our environment? Just curious? It seems to me that we should always seek to do what helps to prevent destruction of God's creation rather than what promotes it. :think:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

My gutt feel is this entire thing is sorta like crop circles.

In light of the discovery that man made global warming is a hoax I think most lefties will just ignore the facts and continue on as if nothing has happened (just like when it was discovered and admitted who was creating crop circles).

But then as time moves on the man made global warming "crisis" will need to morph into something else, it will need to get a face-lift or a name change in order to put this ugly episode behind it because it's a bit too damaging to ignore.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Regardless of whether or not the crisis is true or not... why does it ever make sense to increase the amount of destruction we do to our environment? Just curious? It seems to me that we should always seek to do what helps to prevent destruction of God's creation rather than what promotes it. :think:

Who wants to hurt the environment? :idunno:

 

[Stripe]

Evolutionists, for one, will generally be very unwilling to admit that global warming is a fabrication.

 

[annabenedetti]

Regardless of whether or not the crisis is true or not... why does it ever make sense to increase the amount of destruction we do to our environment? Just curious? It seems to me that we should always seek to do what helps to prevent destruction of God's creation rather than what promotes it. :think:

Good stewardship of the earth God created is one thing.
Using the man-made religion of global warming as the new regime of subjugation is another. Wake up, people!

We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things.

--Karl Marx, The German Ideology

 

[elohiym]

why does it ever make sense to increase the amount of destruction we do to our environment?

If CO2 does not destroy the environment, and if glacial and interglacial cycles are a natural phenomenon, should anyone be claiming that man-made CO2 emissions are destroying the environment? And if not, then what's the point of carbon taxes, mandatory compact fluorescent light bulb regulations, or any other draconian measures created to prevent a disaster that isn't real?

 

[Aimiel]

Seeing portions of mountains in the Alps that have been encased in glaciers for all of recorded history, one has to think. :think:

 

[elohiym]

Evolutionists, for one, will generally be very unwilling to admit that global warming is a fabrication.

Because they will have to eat descendants of Australasian Corvidae.

 

[screamin4u2hear]

If CO2 does not destroy the environment, and if glacial and interglacial cycles are a natural phenomenon, should anyone be claiming that man-made CO2 emissions are destroying the environment? And if not, then what's the point of carbon taxes, mandatory compact fluorescent light bulb regulations, or any other draconian measures created to prevent a disaster that isn't real?

I agree that if there is some accusation about something destroying the environment and it actually does not, then it should be exposed. On the same token my concern is this... there are people I know who call take the stance of Global Warming being a hoax to a whole new level. They use the hoax as an excuse to justify any action regardless of the effect it has on our environment.

I will be the first to admit that I am not a scientist and have not done much reading about scientific studies of human effects on the environment... but I would be more than eager to read any helpful links that those here on TOL would like to provide concerning this matter.

My only point is that we should be careful to cause the pendulum of reaction to swing all the way to the opposite end of the spectrum. Just a word of caution, I'm not accusing anyone here of doing that. I personally know of people that claim the environment is unimportant and we can/should do whatever we want to it because God gave it to us for our personal use. I see that perspective as a dangerous and malicious interpretation of scripture. I am not, however, saying that we should buy into any and all kinds of propaganda that is fed to us through the media.

:cheers:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Seeing portions of mountains in the Alps that have been encased in glaciers for all of recorded history, one has to think. :think:

...has to think what?

 

[Aimiel]

I'm no scientist, and don't believe that global warming is the crisis some are making it out to be, due to the trace amounts of CO2 we're talking about, relative to the CO2 that's natural and the huge amount of nitrogen and oxygen in our atmosphere by comparison; but I can't refute that the ice is melting, and raising the ocean's level. It's a shame about pretend scientists fudging data. Just brings ALL science into question. :duh:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I'm no scientist, and don't believe that global warming is the crisis some are making it out to be, due to the trace amounts of CO2 we're talking about, relative to the CO2 that's natural and the huge amount of nitrogen and oxygen in our atmosphere by comparison; but I can't refute that the ice is melting, and raising the ocean's level. It's a shame about pretend scientists fudging data. Just brings ALL science into question. :duh:

Why do you suppose the scientists had to "fudge" the data?

 

[firon]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for December 8th, 2009 10:11 AM

toldailytopic: Man made global warming crisis: is the hoax finally dead for good?

Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.

It doesn't matter that the hoax has been exposed. They knew there was no warming crisis. Their only intent was to confiscate enough taxes to establish their one world government. The warming hoax was to be the justification for laying such heavy taxes on the wealthy countries. Since it has been exposed, they will just continue as intended even though their justification is no more.

Don't worry, everyone! They are tyrants - the rulers you deserve and will suffer under because you rejected the reign of Christ over you. The tyrant comes to kill. Christ came that you might have life and have it more abundantly, but you prefer to be ruled by tyrants. So don't worry! Smile. Be happy!

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Has anyone here watched the Al Gore documentary? Or the 11th hour documentary? Both on global warming, aka climate change (more appropriate name imo).

 

[elohiym]

Has anyone here watched the Al Gore documentary?

Al Gore is more dangerous to the environment than global warming. Perhaps we should replace him with a compact fluorescent light bulb; it certainly would be brighter.

 

[kmoney]

Has anyone here watched the Al Gore documentary? Or the 11th hour documentary? Both on global warming, aka climate change (more appropriate name imo).

I saw Gore's movie.