Planning COP 16

In reality President Obama would never publicly makes such a recommendation as this; he’s always been far too proud to think that his words can’t overcome facts. He or his attack dog, Rahm Emanuel, probably should have though. ๐Ÿ˜‰

barack obama
Obama – Planning The Next Warmist Gathering

Yeah, having some of the coldest weather in recorded history and a blizzard hamper the Warmists’ Conference of the Parties (COP 15) didn’t bode well for public acceptance of their agenda.

That probably has something to do with why the sixteenth Conference of the Parties (COP) under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is to b held in balmy Mexico this year. ๐Ÿ˜‰

Tags: | | | | | | | |

15 Responses to “Planning COP 16”

  1. Samantha Says:

    Hilarious! Thanks for the laugh of the day. That blizzard was sent straight from G-d!

  2. Paradigm Says:

    Haha. But seriously speaking, the glaciers here are melting; ski resorts are investing in artificial snow, and we even have vineyards now. So it’s not getting any colder.

  3. jonolan Says:

    Samantha,

    I’m glad you liked it.

    Paradigm,

    In some areas the empirical evidence says that it is getting warmer. In other areas the data shows it’s getting colder. In yet other areas, say the oceans in general, the sensors show that temperatures are remaining constant.

    What’s actually happening on a global scale is, as far as I can see, still beyond human understanding. The causes for whatever is happening is even more so.

    Please understand, that’s as far as I go with this. I’m a skeptic, not a denier. I’d much prefer sane “countermeasures” that realize secondary real benefits – other than robbing wealthier nations to subsidize the 3rd-World – and further, non-agenda-driven scientific study on the matter with the data made fully publicly available.

  4. zhann Says:

    God has an interesting sense of humor.

    In reality, you can look at the global warming debate much the same way as you do in selecting a President. Rarely is there a candidate that is obviously the better choice, generally you are picking between the lesser of two evils. If you look at this debate that way, as far as I’m concerned, there is no choice.

    While the evidence may not be that clear, there is plenty to go around. Since we are picking sides, I just can’t side with the deniers for a number of reasons, their base being the biggest reason. There is little denying the fact that we are impacting our environment, hence it seems logical to do whatever we can in order to preserve our environment as best as possible.

  5. Elric66 Says:

    That include giving our wealth over to poor nations Zhann?

  6. zhann Says:

    Elric, in my humble opinion, considering the fact that western nations simply rob the 3rd world nations of their wealth, the very least they can do is give a small percentage of it back. Using the guise of Global Warming to do this is perfectly fine by me, although I advocate that global warming is in fact being (at least partially) caused by man and this process should be slowed.

  7. jonolan Says:

    Well, zhann, that’s part of the problem. People like yourself don’t really care whether or not AGW is real or not; you’re content with using it as an excuse to further an unrelated agenda that has nothing to do with climatology.

    I’ll refer you to a poignant quote, zhann:

    Now is my way clear, now is the meaning plain:
    Temptation shall not come in this kind again.
    The last temptation is the greatest treason:
    To do the right deed for the wrong reason.

    — T.S. Eliot

    It’s both a poor and dangerous thing to do the right thing for the wrong reason.

  8. Elric66 Says:

    “considering the fact that western nations simply rob the 3rd world nations of their wealth”

    Sure we did.

    “although I advocate that global warming is in fact being (at least partially) caused by man and this process should be slowed.”

    Sure is it. Just like when it was much warmer in the 1400’s.

  9. zhann Says:

    Jonolan, you misunderstood. I truly believe that global warming is at least in part being caused by humanity and needs to be addressed properly. However, my point is that you, as well as many others, state uncertainty but are not fully denying it. If you are uncertain, then you should pick the lesser of two evils.

    Now, when I say I am certain I mean that I am 99% sure. I will never attribute 100% to anything except the fact that one day I will die. Hence, I must entertain the possibility that I am in fact wrong. So, even if I am wrong, I still see absolutely no reason to stop pursuing the goals of the warmists because regardless of what it is the right thing to do. I hope that is a bit clearer.

    Elric, I don’t follow. Are you implying that western countries do not get rich off third world wealth, or do you merely consider this fair treatment (not being robbed)? As for your second comment, I return to my point to Jonolan.

  10. Elric66 Says:

    “Are you implying that western countries do not get rich off third world wealth”

    Try giving examples.

    “I truly believe that global warming is at least in part being caused by humanity and needs to be addressed properly”

    Its been cooling for the past 10 years so why does it need to be “addressed”?

  11. zhann Says:

    Examples, ok … Lets concentrate on Africa and South America, shall we?

    Africa’s most prominent natural resource would have to be gems. Do you know who controls the Diamond market in Africa? How about the Ruby market? A better question, can you name one African company that controls any of the Precious Gem manufacturing in Africa? I can’t. However, when it comes to non-African, De Beers comes to mind. Up until relatively recently, very few Africans even owned land in Africa.

    As for South America the most glaring example is probably Venezuela. How much do you know about Venezuela and why there is such conflict? The fact is, before Hugo Chavez, the USA controlled the oil in Venezuela and the people saw none of the profits. Now, things have changed, but only in Venezuela. The rest of South America, on the other hand, are owned by US companies. All major fruit export, all Oil and Natural Gas export, even the Panama Canal was only recently returned to South America.

    As for cooling … well, I hear otherwise. This is obviously a subject that we will have little agreement on, but do you at least recognize that polluting the planet with CO2, as well as countless other air-born chemicals not to mention how much pollution we pour onto the ground, is bad? This alone is enough, but the fact that it is having repercussions on the globe should at least warrant some action.

    … if you think the global warming ‘panic’ is bad, you wait until the next panic comes … the polluted water supply. Speaking of the west controlling 3rd world countries, guess who owns the majority of the water in South America?

  12. Elric66 Says:

    Wow, owning a country amounts to stealing, I did not know that.

    CO2 isnt a pollutant.

    “the polluted water supply.”

    Awesome, governments will control what we drink too.

    “The fact is, before Hugo Chavez, the USA controlled the oil in Venezuela and the people saw none of the profits. Now, things have changed, but only in Venezuela.”

    Sure has. A fascist dictatorship where the standard of living has gone down and little freedom.

  13. zhann Says:

    Owning a country? Do you feel that the USA owns South America and Africa?

    … as for Venezuela’s standard of living, it is difficult to believe what is printed in Western Press regarding this subject primarily because if things really were as bad as the west lead people to believe, why does Chavez have such strong support? Mainstream Media in general always needs to be taken with a grain of salt, especially when printing ‘facts’ about enemies.

  14. Elric66 Says:

    I meant owning a company, my mistake.

    “Why does Chavez have such strong support?”

    Among jihadists? Because he hates the West and hates capitalism.

  15. zhann Says:

    I see that this conversation will simply go in circles indefinitely. I suggest you do some reading on the history of South America, that will clear up a lot for you. If reading history isn’t your thing, there are two ‘good?’ movies out, Zeitgeist and Zeitgeist2. While they are extremely propaganda heavy in the way they lay out their facts, the facts themselves are solid. The second one does a good job at explaining much of the US / South American conflict.

Leave a Reply