In search of a global ethic and political will, in freezing weather and the most dispiriting cavernous building under cold grey Copenhagen skies, this search by 34,000 people with 3500 press observing, is a most extraordinary moment in time for humanity. There is a mix of aspiration
It bothers me that you think that the science is so settled when there are so many prominent scientists such as Ian Plimer, Lord Monton, and others present so much evidence to the contrary. But for the sake of argument let's say that global warming is real and that it's main proponents aren't hypocrites, (Al Gore eating meat when the main cause of "green house gas", the summit in Copenhagen producing more CO2 than 30 countries combined) why do the solutions they propose not actually address the issue of emissions but the one of Climate Debt? This is where it really starts to bother me. Climate Debt is a form of social justice. Social justice is a good thing right? I dont think anyone would argue that is a bad thing until it comes to legislating it. Jesus came as The agent of reconciliation, to reconcile man to God and man to man, the problem with legislated social justice is that there is no reconciliation. when you enact "social justice" as a law you are forcing at gun point one man to give what is his to someone else regardless of whether or not the man being taken from did any harm to the other man. Christians should fight for social justice and reconciliation everywhere but not in the form of legislation. When it is legislated it becomes theft.
you actually support this global warming crap? by their own admission the measures their taking would do nothing to curb emissions. the only thing this is for is to restructure the global economy. Jesus might have talked about redistribution of wealth but it was suppose to come from an overflow of the heart not at the barrel of a gun
Interesting response above.
What do you mean?
Apart from the passing reference in remembrance of the talented late Thomas Crapper, an inventor of the flush toilet, what does the references to "Crap" mean?
We all know that when livestock are penned up and the yards are not cleansed it gets rather messy. Yet when bagged up it can be sold down at the garden centre as good fertilizer.
Was this reference just a passing expression about the quality of and exposition of the research which is suggesting that our civilization is crapping in its own nest, or a reference to the inability of our civilization to accept responsibility for its pollutants?
This raises a few issues.
That there is no signature in any climate measurements that can be identified as being caused by man's activities.
The current issue, the so called climate gate has discredited the whole structure of climate science. So it is all meaningless.
Don't see any follow on ripple of collapse in the rest of the scientific community.
The Journal Nature is quoted as saying
"The journal Nature, with its immense and authoritative record surveying the science scene over hundreds of years said this about any 'fraud',:
"This paranoid interpretation would be laughable were it not for the fact that obstructionist politicians in the US Senate will probably use it next year as an excuse to stiffen their opposition to the country's much needed climate bill. Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real - or that human activities are almost certainly the cause. That case is supported by multiple, robust lines of evidence, including several that are completely independent of the climate reconstructions debated in the e-mails."
For more see http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/13/2...
That the effects of our civilisation on the earth's eco system is insignificant and cannot be quantified, and business as usual is quite OK. There are other issues, not least the progressive decline of our coral reefs
you actually support this global warming crap? by their own admission the measures their taking would do nothing to curb emissions. the only thing this is for is to restructure the global economy. Jesus might have talked about redistribution of wealth but it was suppose to come from an overflow of the heart not at the barrel of a gun
Interesting response above.
What do you mean?
Apart from the passing reference in remembrance of the talented late Thomas Crapper, an inventor of the flush toilet, what does the references to "Crap" mean?
We all know that when livestock are penned up and the yards are not cleansed it gets rather messy. Yet when bagged up it can be sold down at the garden centre as good fertilizer.
Was this reference just a passing expression about the quality of and exposition of the research which is suggesting that our civilization is crapping in its own nest, or a reference to the inability of our civilization to accept responsibility for its pollutants?
This raises a few issues.
That there is no signature in any climate measurements that can be identified as being caused by man's activities.
The current issue, the so called climate gate has discredited the whole structure of climate science. So it is all meaningless.
Don't see any follow on ripple of collapse in the rest of the scientific community.
The Journal Nature is quoted as saying
"The journal Nature, with its immense and authoritative record surveying the science scene over hundreds of years said this about any 'fraud',:
"This paranoid interpretation would be laughable were it not for the fact that obstructionist politicians in the US Senate will probably use it next year as an excuse to stiffen their opposition to the country's much needed climate bill. Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real - or that human activities are almost certainly the cause. That case is supported by multiple, robust lines of evidence, including several that are completely independent of the climate reconstructions debated in the e-mails."
For more see http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/13/2...
That the effects of our civilisation on the earth's eco system is insignificant and cannot be quantified, and business as usual is quite OK. There are other issues, not least the progressive decline of our coral reefs
It bothers me that you think that the science is so settled when there are so many prominent scientists such as Ian Plimer, Lord Monton, and others present so much evidence to the contrary. But for the sake of argument let's say that global warming is real and that it's main proponents aren't hypocrites, (Al Gore eating meat when the main cause of "green house gas", the summit in Copenhagen producing more CO2 than 30 countries combined) why do the solutions they propose not actually address the issue of emissions but the one of Climate Debt? This is where it really starts to bother me. Climate Debt is a form of social justice. Social justice is a good thing right? I dont think anyone would argue that is a bad thing until it comes to legislating it. Jesus came as The agent of reconciliation, to reconcile man to God and man to man, the problem with legislated social justice is that there is no reconciliation. when you enact "social justice" as a law you are forcing at gun point one man to give what is his to someone else regardless of whether or not the man being taken from did any harm to the other man. Christians should fight for social justice and reconciliation everywhere but not in the form of legislation. When it is legislated it becomes theft.
It bothers me that you think that the science is so settled when there are so many prominent scientists such as Ian Plimer, Lord Monton, and others present so much evidence to the contrary. But for the sake of argument let's say that global warming is real and that it's main proponents aren't hypocrites, (Al Gore eating meat when the main cause of "green house gas", the summit in Copenhagen producing more CO2 than 30 countries combined) why do the solutions they propose not actually address the issue of emissions but the one of Climate Debt? This is where it really starts to bother me. Climate Debt is a form of social justice. Social justice is a good thing right? I dont think anyone would argue that is a bad thing until it comes to legislating it. Jesus came as The agent of reconciliation, to reconcile man to God and man to man, the problem with legislated social justice is that there is no reconciliation. when you enact "social justice" as a law you are forcing at gun point one man to give what is his to someone else regardless of whether or not the man being taken from did any harm to the other man. Christians should fight for social justice and reconciliation everywhere but not in the form of legislation. When it is legislated it becomes theft.
It bothers me that you think that the science is so settled when there are so many prominent scientists such as Ian Plimer, Lord Monton, and others present so much evidence to the contrary. But for the sake of argument let's say that global warming is real and that it's main proponents aren't hypocrites, (Al Gore eating meat when the main cause of "green house gas", the summit in Copenhagen producing more CO2 than 30 countries combined) why do the solutions they propose not actually address the issue of emissions but the one of Climate Debt? This is where it really starts to bother me. Climate Debt is a form of social justice. Social justice is a good thing right? I dont think anyone would argue that is a bad thing until it comes to legislating it. Jesus came as The agent of reconciliation, to reconcile man to God and man to man, the problem with legislated social justice is that there is no reconciliation. when you enact "social justice" as a law you are forcing at gun point one man to give what is his to someone else regardless of whether or not the man being taken from did any harm to the other man. Christians should fight for social justice and reconciliation everywhere but not in the form of legislation. When it is legislated it becomes theft.
Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.
you actually support this global warming crap? by their own admission the measures their taking would do nothing to curb emissions. the only thing this is for is to restructure the global economy. Jesus might have talked about redistribution of wealth but it was suppose to come from an overflow of the heart not at the barrel of a gun
you actually support this global warming crap? by their own admission the measures their taking would do nothing to curb emissions. the only thing this is for is to restructure the global economy. Jesus might have talked about redistribution of wealth but it was suppose to come from an overflow of the heart not at the barrel of a gun
Interesting response above.
What do you mean?
Apart from the passing reference in remembrance of the talented late Thomas Crapper, an inventor of the flush toilet, what does the references to "Crap" mean?
We all know that when livestock are penned up and the yards are not cleansed it gets rather messy. Yet when bagged up it can be sold down at the garden centre as good fertilizer.
Was this reference just a passing expression about the quality of and exposition of the research which is suggesting that our civilization is crapping in its own nest, or a reference to the inability of our civilization to accept responsibility for its pollutants?
This raises a few issues.
That there is no signature in any climate measurements that can be identified as being caused by man's activities.
The current issue, the so called climate gate has discredited the whole structure of climate science. So it is all meaningless.
Don't see any follow on ripple of collapse in the rest of the scientific community.
The Journal Nature is quoted as saying
"The journal Nature, with its immense and authoritative record surveying the science scene over hundreds of years said this about any 'fraud',:
"This paranoid interpretation would be laughable were it not for the fact that obstructionist politicians in the US Senate will probably use it next year as an excuse to stiffen their opposition to the country's much needed climate bill. Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real - or that human activities are almost certainly the cause. That case is supported by multiple, robust lines of evidence, including several that are completely independent of the climate reconstructions debated in the e-mails."
For more see http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/13/2...
That the effects of our civilisation on the earth's eco system is insignificant and cannot be quantified, and business as usual is quite OK. There are other issues, not least the progressive decline of our coral reefs
Interesting response above.
What do you mean?
Apart from the passing reference in remembrance of the talented late Thomas Crapper, an inventor of the flush toilet, what does the references to "Crap" mean?
We all know that when livestock are penned up and the yards are not cleansed it gets rather messy. Yet when bagged up it can be sold down at the garden centre as good fertilizer.
Was this reference just a passing expression about the quality of and exposition of the research which is suggesting that our civilization is crapping in its own nest, or a reference to the inability of our civilization to accept responsibility for its pollutants?
This raises a few issues.
That there is no signature in any climate measurements that can be identified as being caused by man's activities.
The current issue, the so called climate gate has discredited the whole structure of climate science. So it is all meaningless.
Don't see any follow on ripple of collapse in the rest of the scientific community.
The Journal Nature is quoted as saying
"The journal Nature, with its immense and authoritative record surveying the science scene over hundreds of years said this about any 'fraud',:
"This paranoid interpretation would be laughable were it not for the fact that obstructionist politicians in the US Senate will probably use it next year as an excuse to stiffen their opposition to the country's much needed climate bill. Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real - or that human activities are almost certainly the cause. That case is supported by multiple, robust lines of evidence, including several that are completely independent of the climate reconstructions debated in the e-mails."
For more see http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/13/2...
That the effects of our civilisation on the earth's eco system is insignificant and cannot be quantified, and business as usual is quite OK. There are other issues, not least the progressive decline of our coral reefs
It bothers me that you think that the science is so settled when there are so many prominent scientists such as Ian Plimer, Lord Monton, and others present so much evidence to the contrary. But for the sake of argument let's say that global warming is real and that it's main proponents aren't hypocrites, (Al Gore eating meat when the main cause of "green house gas", the summit in Copenhagen producing more CO2 than 30 countries combined) why do the solutions they propose not actually address the issue of emissions but the one of Climate Debt? This is where it really starts to bother me. Climate Debt is a form of social justice. Social justice is a good thing right? I dont think anyone would argue that is a bad thing until it comes to legislating it. Jesus came as The agent of reconciliation, to reconcile man to God and man to man, the problem with legislated social justice is that there is no reconciliation. when you enact "social justice" as a law you are forcing at gun point one man to give what is his to someone else regardless of whether or not the man being taken from did any harm to the other man. Christians should fight for social justice and reconciliation everywhere but not in the form of legislation. When it is legislated it becomes theft.
It bothers me that you think that the science is so settled when there are so many prominent scientists such as Ian Plimer, Lord Monton, and others present so much evidence to the contrary. But for the sake of argument let's say that global warming is real and that it's main proponents aren't hypocrites, (Al Gore eating meat when the main cause of "green house gas", the summit in Copenhagen producing more CO2 than 30 countries combined) why do the solutions they propose not actually address the issue of emissions but the one of Climate Debt? This is where it really starts to bother me. Climate Debt is a form of social justice. Social justice is a good thing right? I dont think anyone would argue that is a bad thing until it comes to legislating it. Jesus came as The agent of reconciliation, to reconcile man to God and man to man, the problem with legislated social justice is that there is no reconciliation. when you enact "social justice" as a law you are forcing at gun point one man to give what is his to someone else regardless of whether or not the man being taken from did any harm to the other man. Christians should fight for social justice and reconciliation everywhere but not in the form of legislation. When it is legislated it becomes theft.
It bothers me that you think that the science is so settled when there are so many prominent scientists such as Ian Plimer, Lord Monton, and others present so much evidence to the contrary. But for the sake of argument let's say that global warming is real and that it's main proponents aren't hypocrites, (Al Gore eating meat when the main cause of "green house gas", the summit in Copenhagen producing more CO2 than 30 countries combined) why do the solutions they propose not actually address the issue of emissions but the one of Climate Debt? This is where it really starts to bother me. Climate Debt is a form of social justice. Social justice is a good thing right? I dont think anyone would argue that is a bad thing until it comes to legislating it. Jesus came as The agent of reconciliation, to reconcile man to God and man to man, the problem with legislated social justice is that there is no reconciliation. when you enact "social justice" as a law you are forcing at gun point one man to give what is his to someone else regardless of whether or not the man being taken from did any harm to the other man. Christians should fight for social justice and reconciliation everywhere but not in the form of legislation. When it is legislated it becomes theft.
It bothers me that you think that the science is so settled when there are so many prominent scientists such as Ian Plimer, Lord Monton, and others present so much evidence to the contrary. But for the sake of argument let's say that global warming is real and that it's main proponents aren't hypocrites, (Al Gore eating meat when the main cause of "green house gas", the summit in Copenhagen producing more CO2 than 30 countries combined) why do the solutions they propose not actually address the issue of emissions but the one of Climate Debt? This is where it really starts to bother me. Climate Debt is a form of social justice. Social justice is a good thing right? I dont think anyone would argue that is a bad thing until it comes to legislating it. Jesus came as The agent of reconciliation, to reconcile man to God and man to man, the problem with legislated social justice is that there is no reconciliation. when you enact "social justice" as a law you are forcing at gun point one man to give what is his to someone else regardless of whether or not the man being taken from did any harm to the other man. Christians should fight for social justice and reconciliation everywhere but not in the form of legislation. When it is legislated it becomes theft.
