Statistics tend to prove there is a global warming. OK, so what?
Is this all that bad? 
I mean, we are now only hearing of the nefast consequences of the warming. But aren't there any advantages to this? Couldn't we try to use this warming to make our planet a better place to live (at least on the dry parts of it).
Else, everyone says now Copenhague is a terrible failure. Was this result not expected?
They have only talked about CO2-emissions. As far as I konw, these emissions are not the most important factor in the global warning. So, no agreement on it does not mean that the result is a failure.
What well could called a failure is that:
- no one spoke about the water reserves
- no one spoke about the other sources of warming
- no one spoke about how to go further within 20/50 years when there won't be any oil/gas on earth...
Shouldn't we start with this?

belaji wrote on 12/20/09 at 07:56:06:
What do they teach in schools today?

The economical system we live in today is generally called capitalism. If this is right, then economy is only driven by making as much money as possible. Everything else (ethical thougts b.e.) is only used if it helps profit. Capital and his daughter profit are both addicts. They want more and more and they don't see side-effects. So far the economical part.

Now the political part. In politics people are successful who think that power is fun. For them power is the most important part in their life. As said by all militarists in all times power comes from the arms.

B.e. the US congress decides to spend 650.000.000.000 $ for the military industrial complex including 150.000.000.000 $ for the two wars in Irak and Afghanistan. At the same time the congressman are not ready to spend 2.900.000.000 for developing countries helping them in the climate question. This is not written to blame the USA. This was in the news yesterday and I'm absolutely sure you will find the same everywhere else in the world.

This is the result of two structures: Capitalism and power seeking. Karl Marx was wiser than many of his readers when titling his book "Das Kapital". It was not "Der Kapitalist". This is no question of good or bad. People being content with their life and wanting to do something else than productive work most of their time are a threat to profit, politicians, militarists who want people to spend all their time with something 'productive', means profitable.

B.e.: Who has higher prestige: The person working 15 till 20 hours a week to earn their living or people spending 60 till 80 hours? And what would most people decide to do, if they really had the choice?

Do voters in democracy have the choice to vote for people standing on the side of the 20 hour week?

This has implications for the climate/co2-emission. You don't need much time to find them.

Markovich wrote on 12/18/09 at 16:18:29:


Well clearly China is a big part of the problem as well as one of the world's two largest polluters. Funny enough the earth does not seem to be able to distinguish between CO2 emissions from developed countries versus developing countries. But even if China were to agree to verification, there is still remains lack of will for the world's largest countries and significant polluters to do enough.


By the way, what is not clear to me though is if all major countries would be subject to this verification. I cannot seem to find the answer in any of the news reports. Clearly if it a case of the US saying to China, we don't trust you, but the US itself is not being subject to independent verification, China will never agree to that.

Edited:

If only climate change was all an elaborate scam as the skeptics believe. Say it is so, say it is so. 

The abject failure of Copenhagen is becoming increasingly apparent. The sad thing is that the future of the world is being hijacked by weak and arrogant leaders from the world's largest countries, the same countries largely responsible for the creation of the problem. I include China and most of the developed world in this category. The world's smallest and poorest countries, which contribute least to this problem are the ones that will suffer dearly for the greed and indifference of the rich and powerful.

DOE sends a “litigation hold notice” regarding CRU to employees – asking to “preserve documents”

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/14/doe-sends-a-litigation-hold-notice-regardi...

This is getting bigger.

What possible reason would CRU have to cook the data to "hide the decline", etc? How about this possibility: $22.6 million in funding with much more to come?

And guess who else they want money from?

"From: "Mick Kelly" <m.kelly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Shell
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 13:31:00 +0100

Mike
Had a very good meeting with Shell yesterday..."

No big deal I guess since everybody is an idiot and weakling anyway.

Stigma wrote on 12/07/09 at 19:24:55:

I know my Popper and Kuhn, but the extent amazed me, in particular the non-scientific part.

I am not sure how applicable this is to all this as it is not as much falsification what they are doing, but more of a "modeltuning". Ie when I have a model and something proves the model wrong, then I tweak the model. Nothing wrong with that approach, but the risk of tunnelvision is way higher and the falsification is near impossible. Let's say I make a model that correlated births and storks based on the amount of sunlight reaching a square meter on the ground. Now for every erronic measurement I can tweak the model, which makes it very difficult to prove I am BS-ing.