The Climate Summit Hypocrisy

They are gathering from around the world to discuss climate change and how the wealthier countries can be raped in order to provide money to countries that are poor. The leaders will gather and discuss ways to spend trillions of dollars in an effort to reduce CO2 emissions that they claim are warming the planet. The massive spending will reduce temperatures less than 1 degree but it sounds good in theory and if they don’t like the way things are they have scientists who know how to cook the books.

The problem is, these people are going to the Summit to discuss ways to reduce carbon footprints and they will generate tons of CO2:

On a normal day, Majken Friss Jorgensen, managing director of Copenhagen’s biggest limousine company, says her firm has twelve vehicles on the road. During the “summit to save the world”, which opens here tomorrow, she will have 200.

“We thought they were not going to have many cars, due to it being a climate convention,” she says. “But it seems that somebody last week looked at the weather report.”

Ms Jorgensen reckons that between her and her rivals the total number of limos in Copenhagen next week has already broken the 1,200 barrier. The French alone rang up on Thursday and ordered another 42. “We haven’t got enough limos in the country to fulfil the demand,” she says. “We’re having to drive them in hundreds of miles from Germany and Sweden.”

And the total number of electric cars or hybrids among that number? “Five,” says Ms Jorgensen. “The government has some alternative fuel cars but the rest will be petrol or diesel. We don’t have any hybrids in Denmark, unfortunately, due to the extreme taxes on those cars. It makes no sense at all, but it’s very Danish.”

The airport says it is expecting up to 140 extra private jets during the peak period alone, so far over its capacity that the planes will have to fly off to regional airports – or to Sweden – to park, returning to Copenhagen to pick up their VIP passengers. Telegraph UK

So, few hybrids, a fleet of limos and an air force worth of private jets will descend upon Copenhagen spewing tons of CO2.

They hope to be able to get rules in place to tell us how to live, what to drive and how to fly but they have a hard time putting that into practice.

Another example of “do as I say, not as I do.”

All in the name of a hoax.

Big Dog

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

14 Responses to “The Climate Summit Hypocrisy”

  1. Adam says:

    Right. It snowed in Sacramento. Global warming is a hoax. Do you ever get tired of making such unscientific arguments in your attempt to deny actual science?

  2. Blake says:

    Actually, the scientists, with their lying E- mails, have said it best- they cooked the data to make their case- in plain words, they LIED. A scientist doesn’t need to lie if the facts are truly on their side- in this case they weren’t.
    Co2 in beneficial to the climate, not dangerous- the only thing this hoopla does is make Al (I am a loser) Gore a little richer on the backs of poor people, who cannot afford a Prius (even if they WANTED one).
    I for one, will put my faith in the deep- water discoveries of oil in the Gulf of Mexico- they just discovered a field of over a billion barrels, with more to come.
    Oh, and Adam? It also snowed in South Texas- another unusual place to have the white stuff- I suppose you will do as the “Chicken Little” climatologists do, and say that all this snowfall just proves the “Global Warming” argument- a ridiculous premise if there ever was one.

  3. Darrel says:

    Every single global warming denier argument ever put forward by Blake and Bigd is carefully dismantled in this short and well referenced article in Scientific American.

    November 30, 2009

    Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense.

    They can read it in 15 minutes. A little longer if they want to check references and expand their knowledge.

    There is no excuse for being so totally misinformed other than they have carefully and purposely avoided reading the standard mainstream science that corrects the basic errors they regurgitate. They do this because it conflicts with their political prejudices. And they are intellectual cowards.

    BLK: will put my faith in the deep- water discoveries of oil in the Gulf of Mexico- they just discovered a field of over a billion barrels>>

    That’s nice. Enough oil to carry the worlds current usage for 12.5 days. Or the US, for less than 2 months. Then it’s gone.

    “Yet, Arctic sea ice continues to dwindle—as do glaciers across the globe; average temperatures have increased by 0.7 degree Celsius in the past century and the last decade is the warmest in the instrumental record; spring has sprung forward, affecting everything from flower blossoms to animal migrations; and the concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases continue to rise, reaching 387 parts per million in 2009, a rise of 30 percent since 1750.

    Nor has the fundamental physics of the greenhouse effect changed: CO2 in the atmosphere continues to trap heat that would otherwise slip into space, as was established by Irish scientist John Tyndall in 1859. “There is a natural greenhouse effect, that’s what keeps the planet livable,” noted climate modeler Gavin Schmidt of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) during a Friday conference call with reporters organized by the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank. “Without it, we’d be 33 degrees Celsius colder than we are. That’s been known for hundreds of years.”

    Scientists Respond to “Climategate” E-Mail Controversy

    • Big Dog says:

      And this answers it for you.

      No, the science is not settled and there are no intellectual cowards except those who cut off debate by declaring that an issue is settled.

      Like if I said we should cut off health care reform debate because the issue was settled when the country did not want it from Clinton. Most Americans oppose what is going on and realize that this is not the reform needed.

      • Darrel says:

        Bigd: “And this answers it for you.”>>

        I only needed to read the first sentence to know the man is a fool. He passes along the “global cooling in the 70’s” that I have debunked dozens of times. You quote an economist magazine. Sorry, that’s not where you go to get good science.

        Try again.

        Let me try again. The guy says:

        “And The New York Times, Aug. 14, 1976, reported “many signs that Earth may be headed for another ice age.”

        Here the fool is confusing the fact that on a cycle of tens of thousands of years, yes, we are headed for another ice age.

        Why is he saying such stupid things? Is this fellow a scientist? Let’s check:

        “Gary Sutton is co-founder of Teledesic and has been CEO of several other companies, including Knight Protective Industries and @Backup.”

        That’s nice. He knows how to make money. Not a drop of evidence that he knows anything about climate science and what he does print is the same lines of crap all these know-nothing deniers like to publish. Pick something you would like to defend and we’ll see how it stands up. None of it will. His Gore smears are similarly false and out of date.

        Post it in our freethinker forum and I’ll shred it line by line.

        Bigd: no intellectual cowards except those who cut off debate>>

        Oh I am very much for not cutting off debate. You should know that.

        When would you like to begin?

        Let me know. What have you got? Let’s see your good solid peer reviewed science. You’ve got nothing because as I said, *everything* you have tried float has been easily roasted and the entirety of every thing you have even shot off is completely dusted in the simple and short Scientific American article I just cited. Everything.


    • Big Dog says:

      Not without its issues…

      In its January 2002 issue, Scientific American published a series of criticisms of the Bjorn Lomborg book “The Skeptical Environmentalist”. Cato Institute fellow Patrick J. Michaels said the attacks came because the book “threatens billions of taxpayer dollars that go into the global change kitty every year.”[5] Journalist Ronald Bailey called the criticism “disturbing” and “dishonest”, writing, “The subhead of the review section, ‘Science defends itself against The Skeptical Environmentalist,’ gives the show away: Religious and political views need to defend themselves against criticism, but science is supposed to be a process for determining the facts.”[6]

      • Darrel says:

        Bigd: “In its January 2002 issue, Scientific American published a series of criticisms of the Bjorn Lomborg book”>>

        Lomborg is precious. Good to see Scientific American exposed him too. That’s as hard as falling off a log. Any background in the applicable sciences from this fellow? Nope.

        “…master’s degree in political science… and a Ph.D. in political science… He has no training in climatology, meteorology, or the physical sciences…”

        Of course. But worse, as I’ve told you before, Bjorn Lomborg is a profoundly dishonest person. One of his books has 300 lies in it. See this documented over and over, here:

        Chapter by chapter errors here:

        His stupid book (very popular with rightwingers) was so bad the “Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty” investigated his book and cited him for:

        1. Fabrication of data;

        2. Selective discarding of unwanted results (selective citation);

        3. Deliberately misleading use of statistical methods;

        4. Distorted interpretation of conclusions;

        5. Plagiarism;

        6. Deliberate misinterpretation of others’ results.

        Is this the type of fellow one wants to look to for good science information? I don’t think so.

        Bigd: [quote] “Cato Institute fellow Patrick J. Michaels said…”>>

        Finally a fellow with training in climatology! But alas, after being exposed in excruciating detail for receiving direct payments of hundreds of thousands of dollars from the energy industry, people don’t pay him much mind anymore. And he’s never published anything interesting on the subject. I wonder why? After all, that’s how you change the science. You don’t go around and do PR and give lectures to the industries that pay you to lie to them. That is, unless you are just in it to make big bucks, as he is. He was big in the early 90’s. He’s just a tired old prostitute now. Probably has lots of money though. That’s important.

        I once went through and detailed how he clearly doctored a chart when he was before congress trying to smear Jim Hansen. It was so clear, so blatant, the GW denier I was debating had to admit it. Let me know if you would like the link to this exchange. It’s on our forum and I can find it in a snap.

        “Dr. John Holdren of Harvard University told the U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee, “Michaels is another of the handful of US climate-change contrarians… He has published little if anything of distinction in the professional literature, being noted rather for his shrill op-ed pieces and indiscriminate denunciations of virtually every finding of mainstream climate science.”[37]

        Dr. Tom Wigley,… one of the world’s leading climate scientists, [said] “Michaels’ statements on [the subject of computer models] are a catalog of misrepresentation and misinterpretation… Many of the supposedly factual statements made in Michaels’ testimony are either inaccurate or are seriously misleading.”


  4. victoria says:

    Al Gore wrote for that magazine too referenced above–that is all I need to know.

    • Darrel says:

      Victoria’s “guilt by association” fallacy blanket is so large it can poison anything a magazine has ever published, just because it once published something by Al Gore.

      • Big Dog says:

        You mean like you do when you say the first sentence of something is all you need to read….

        • Darrel says:

          Not at all alike.

          It is quite possible to discover a person doesn’t know what they are talking about in their first sentence. If a person says “most pianos have 64 keys” I know they are not knowledgeable about pianos.

          The difference with what Victoria did? I didn’t dismiss everything ever published by this magazine because they allowed this guy to print something.


      • victoria says:

        Oh give me a break, I went through that website and every fricking article practically is nothing but climate change, climate change, climate change. So don’t tell me they don’t back that 100% and it isn’t 100% a Democratic rag.

  5. Big Dog says:

    You debunked which he clearly shows government scientists were in agreement with.

    You debunk nothing, you just discard that with which you disagree, the same thing you accuse me of.