# The Factual Argument Against Global Warming, Cap and Trade, and the Copenhagen Treaty **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 19, 2010, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-factual-argument-against-global-warming-cap-and-trade-and-the-copenhagen-treaty/533049 "2010-03-19T19:13:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-factual-argument-against-global-warming-cap-and-trade-and-the-copenhagen-treaty/533049/121 "2010-03-22T15:42:21Z")
I mean, reducung the use of fossil fuels is one thing, but how do you monitor this? Who will be charged with collecting the data? And, suppose China/India challenges the numbers-who will verify the numbers? And, suppose the parties decide to cheat (a real possibility)-who would impose penalties? Wouldn’t a program to encourage nuclear plant building be much more effective? Finally: in colde countries (who burn fossil fuels for heat)-would they be treated the same as tropical countries (who use air conditioning)? I expect a massive new bureaucracy will be required-is this where Al Gore steps in?😃 ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-factual-argument-against-global-warming-cap-and-trade-and-the-copenhagen-treaty/533049/122 "2010-03-22T15:50:26Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > Do you have any thoughts on this information? I don’t have a good answer for overpopulation any more than I’d have a good answer for an earth-destroying comet headed our way. That it is unsolvable does not diminish its position as Problem #1. I had the sense that you are concerned there is some sort of “men in power” cabal considering draconiam measures to depopulate the world. Pap. It is the case that we are using up the planet, despite your comments that numbers of people is not the problem. Of course it is. We are not going to give up living better so that the world can support more people or so that future generations will have more resources (or a cooler world) left for them. A cursory glance over some of the heroes of the AGW movement (with Mr Gore as the exhibit A caricature) show that we are only interested in hoping the other guy picks up the nomadic lifestyle. For ourselves we will choose comfort over tents; jets over buses; first over coach. Each of us will have a rationale for why we should be the exception. AGW is, on average, a Great Cause. (For that matter, anti-AGW is also a Great Cause these days.) Great Causes are driven by the sense of significance they give to their devotees. The need to find that significance is what drives the embracing of one position or another; not the other way around. Ultimately every “fact” promoting one’s particular Great Cause is heartily embraced; every opposing “so-called fact” is seen as anomaly or distortion or confusion. Most of us are Don Quixotes to varying degrees, tilting at windmills for the Cause du Jour. For this reason you will be able to enjoy the very passionate point by point debates here on the Dope, presented as if the schoolyard debates here were going to change the world. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-factual-argument-against-global-warming-cap-and-trade-and-the-copenhagen-treaty/533049/123 "2010-03-22T16:34:25Z")
Well, once again Al Gore is mentioned. As the science reporter here points out, Al Gore is not a scientist. And it is considered a believer and a counterpoint to deniers. Proponents and skeptical scientists are a different ball of wax. [http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/u/20/52KLGqDSAjo](http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/u/20/52KLGqDSAjo) And yes, one can say that the school yard debates will not change anything. But unfortunately for the deniers, pseudo skeptics and skeptics, the Don Quixote effort in really belongs to the ones that are against the science. [http://woods.stanford.edu/research/majority-believe-global-warming.html](http://woods.stanford.edu/research/majority-believe-global-warming.html) > [@](#): > > Despite recent news reports questioning the credibility of climate science, the vast majority of Americans continue to trust the scientists who say that global warming is real, according to a new Stanford University study. > > “In recent months, we have seen a spate of news stories suggesting that the American public is cooling on global warming - that fewer people now believe that the planet has been heating up than they did a year ago,” said Jon Krosnick, a professor of communication and of political science at Stanford. “But our work shows that the percentage of Americans who believe in the existence of global warming has only dipped 5 points, from 80 percent in 2008 to 75 percent in 2009, and that public confidence in climate scientists has remained constant over the last few years.” > Click to open larger image in new window. > > Those results come from a recent public opinion survey funded by Stanford’s Woods Institute for the Environment and the Associated Press (AP). According to Krosnick, the recent 5-point drop in the percentage of people who believe in global warming was entirely due to a shift in opinions among the minority of Americans who do not trust climate scientists. A majority of these individuals believe that the Earth has been warming over the long haul, but this majority has been shrinking, he said. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-factual-argument-against-global-warming-cap-and-trade-and-the-copenhagen-treaty/533049/124 "2010-03-22T17:23:58Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > Look at wikipedia says about the “World Conservation Bank” and its purpose: > > “The World Conservation Bank was created in 1987 at the 4th World Wilderness Congress. The bank is a creation of Edmund de Rothschild (now dead) to transfer the debt of third world countries to this bank in exchange for their land. This will create a world bank controlled by the House of Rothschild.[1]” I note with a distinct lack of surprise that you actually left something out when quoting from Wikipedia. At the top of [the page](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Conservation_Bank) it says “This article needs additional citations for verification.” Other than the Wikipedia page which freely admits to having no backing, when I search on Google for "World Conservation Bank the next link I get is from [RonPaulForums.com](http://RonPaulForums.com). So, to summarize, when you chose to believe that the World Conservation Bank is part of some massive conspiracy, you were suckered by loony-toon nonsense. > [@](#): > > Okay, since you are not too good with the Google, I’ll give you some help: > > [How Edmund de Rothschild Managed to Let 179 Governments Pay Him for Grasping Up to 30% of the Earth | NWO Observer](http://nwoobserver.wordpress.com/2010/03/16/how-edmund-de-rothschild-managed-to-let-179-governments-pay-him-for-grasping-up-to-30-of-the-earth/) My library’s filter is blocking that webpage, but frankly I don’t think I’m missing very much. > [@](#): > > A few about Al Gore: > > [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/6491195/Al-Gore-could-become-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire.html](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/6491195/Al-Gore-could-become-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire.html) > > [http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE\_ID=54528](http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54528) > > [http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22663](http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22663) A tabloid, World Net Daily, and Human Events. Is that really the best you can do? (For someone who claims to not be a Republican, you sure rely on Republican mouthpieces quite a bit.) > [@](#): > > About “Ecoscience”, textbook dealing with eugenics written by John P. Holdren, Obama’s current science czar: > > [REMIXX WORLD!: "Ecoscience" By John Holdren (PDF of Significant Sections, but Not Full Book)](http://remixxworld.blogspot.com/2009/08/ecoscience-by-john-holdren-pdf-of.html) > > [StockExaminer - AI-Powered Stock Chatbot](http://www.examiner.com/x-722-Conservative-Politics-Examiner~y2009m7d16-Science-Czar-John-P-Holdrens-disturbing-beliefs-about-America-capitalism-and-humanity) > > [http://www.peacefreedomprosperity.com/?tag=john-p-holdren](http://www.peacefreedomprosperity.com/?tag=john-p-holdren) I’m sure if you posted those in another thread, people would be happy to debunk them. As it is, they are completely irrelevant to this thread. I rather suspect that you’re trying to bring up non-sequiters because you see the case that you originally made falling to pieces around you. > [@](#): > > I will concede that I should have wording that sentence more clearly. What I meant to say was that the IPCC was created to further the international political agenda behind global warming. When people talk about a consensus they usually point first to the United Nations IPCC to verify the science. I have said repeatedly that I don’t have a problem with acknowledging that many decent honest scientists can believe in AGW. The problem when you make a list about the “organizations” that all believe in climate change is that it doesn’t show individual scientists opinions and the wide variability of interpretations of the data, their assessment of the threat, and what to do about it. Some scientists may believe global warming is occurring, and think that the threat to the planet is relatively small, or that we couldn’t make a significant dent no matter what we do, or believe in some other “solution” other than Cap and Trade. Then there are those who believe in AGW yet reject the UN international approach to a solution. Maybe they advocate a voluntary, local approach to reducing emissions. > > When you simply list a dozen or so “prestigious organizations” as proof of a scientific theory, you neglect to convey the very wide range of dialog that goes on between scientists on this subject. This is not a black or white issue, the science is complex, and it requires an adult appreciation of nuance. Why won’t the IPCC release its raw data as required under Freedom of Information Act requests? Then before we proceed any further, let’s be straight about what you’re arguing. Are you acknowledging that there is a scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and is caused by human beings? That’s what the paragraphs above would suggest, but it contradicts your original posts. (And if the IPCC is refusing to release raw data, please provide a credible cite to prove it.) > [@](#): > > Completely false. Yeah, any scientists I name are on the payroll of big oil, yet when I point out the moneyed interests on the side of supporting the Cap and Trade carbon trading scam, you think I’m a conspiracy theorists. Believe me, there is more money to be made pushing this through than defeating it. I am not willing to believe you because so much of what you say is easily proven to be incorrect. No matter how many times you ignore it, I’m going to keep saying it: provide a reliable cite. > [@](#): > > No, I don’t think my claims have been shredded pretty thoroughly. I think most of you have given pretty weak rebuttals of my larger points. Since I’m in a generous mood, I will give you a few more links to back up my claims: > > The relationship between Al Gore and Maurice Strong: > [Creators of carbon credit scheme cashing in on it](http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover031307.htm) > > [Obama’s involvement in Chicago Climate Exchange--the rest of the story | Canada Free Press](http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/9629) > > [http://www.afn.org/~govern/strong.html](http://www.afn.org/~govern/strong.html) You said that Al Gore was “disciple” of Maurice Strong. Now you post links saying that Gore once gave a speech in a building owned by Strong. If you look up “disciple” in the dictionary, you’ll see why that doesn’t make the cut. Try harder. ---
**Author:** ![WarmNPrickly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/d78d45/32.png) [@WarmNPrickly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WarmNPrickly)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-factual-argument-against-global-warming-cap-and-trade-and-the-copenhagen-treaty/533049/125 "2010-03-22T18:26:45Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > Look, it appears futile to engage in any sort of discussion of the actual science, since you simply deny the merits of any and all links that I or the other posters link to. I’m certainly not going to go read this entire thread, but I decided to check your most recent link, just to see what you were qualifying as a discussion of the actual science. It is a story that claims John Holdren supports forced abortions and mass sterilization. Given the rights propensity for hyperbolic arguments, I really don’t need to read any further to see that the links you are providing in this debate are pure crap. > [@](#): > > 1. Chemistry includes 4,821 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed. Great. That makes me an expert. The ACS, of which I am a member, fully endorses the conclusions that man made climate change is happening. It has 160,000 members. I personally can’t stand get into these cite battles. I would like to know what you personally think. What do you think is happening to the energy that is absorbed by CO2 if it is not going to heat? ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-factual-argument-against-global-warming-cap-and-trade-and-the-copenhagen-treaty/533049/126 "2010-03-22T21:05:21Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > A few youtube videos by the expert in the field of the agenda behind the climate change movement: > > [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMUzB8nNHcI](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMUzB8nNHcI) > > [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e52KGkiQsx8](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e52KGkiQsx8) The first video makes no mention of climate change whatsoever. The second video… well, I’ll never know what it said, since I stopped watching once it said “The United Nations is run by the same people who manufactured the Holocaust and framed the German people.” While I’d be happy to point out similarities between global warming deniers and Holocaust deniers, this is the first time that I’ve seen one of the first group declare himself as a member of the second. Perhaps you should think twice before citing Ron Paul as an “expert in the field”. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-factual-argument-against-global-warming-cap-and-trade-and-the-copenhagen-treaty/533049/127 "2010-03-22T21:12:27Z")
> [@](#): > > The treaty is finished and ready to be signed. This issue has moved to the backburner due to Health Care reform dominating the priorities of the White House. They will try to push it through when they can. They may not succeed, but the Cap and Trade scheme and this Treaty are the proposed solutions to this problem, and we can debate it whether it has passed or not. They’ve shown their hand. We know what they are planning. They write legislation and wait for the opportunity to push it through, based on the political climate in this country. Like Rahm Emanuel said, they never let a crisis go to waste. They’ll push it through. The treaty is not finished, the treaty is not ready to be signed, _The Copenhagen Treaty does not exist_ except in your imagination. There was a summit in Copenhagen last December but it did not produce a treaty, as anyone who was awake at the time is well aware. Who on Earth do you think you’re fooling? > [@](#): > > In fact, it is only reasonable to come to the conclusions I have after analyzing the data. By the way, what sources do you follow as far as news and information? Is it conventional, mainstream outlets like CNN, Time Magazine, Newsweek, New York Times, etc? If those are your ONLY sources, it would explain why you know so little of the things I am saying. Here is the state of Mainstream news in this country: Disney, Viacom, Turner, CBS and General Electric own more than 95% of media outlets in this country. If we care about having an informed populace, we should reject these forms of media and instead read more, learn how to use the internet to research, and educate oneself about how our government operates, who profits from what, and the agendas of our “leaders”. I get my information about global warming from [RealClimate.org](http://www.realclimate.org/), a website where all the articles are written by actual climate scientists and are about climate science, rather than being written by paranoid journalists ranting about imaginary conspiracies. Perhaps you should try reading it. > [@](#): > > If you want to respond, I would gladly continue this discussion. I will be happy to continue this discussion as well. I think I’ve responded to everything in your post, though I admit my posts were choppy and out of order. To summarize, this is what we’ve shown so far. 1. The World Conservation Bank does not exist. 2. The Copenhagen Treaty does not exist. 3. Al Gore and Maurice Strong have no meaningful relationship. 4. Maurice Strong and Edmund de Rothschild have no meaningful relationship. If you want to admit that you were wrong about these points, then I’ll be happy to discuss whatever new points you wish to make. If, on the other hand, you want to continue making these points and backing them up with links to Holocaust deniers, I’ll probably just ignore you. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-factual-argument-against-global-warming-cap-and-trade-and-the-copenhagen-treaty/533049/128 "2010-03-22T21:41:16Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > So you clearly didn’t look through those links. The moderator clearly advised against posting long paragraphs of text from outside sources. The reasons you should spend the time checking out the links is because they provide further evidence of credible, peer reviewed papers and scientists who dispute Anthropogenic Global Warming. You attempted to belittle the link to the 500 peer reviewed papers linked to previously, even though the rebuttals you cited were tremendously weak and contained some outright lies. So I thought I’d provide some more. I’ll give the headline to each link so you can judge its value and content before you read it: > > **“New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears”:** > > [http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord\_id=84E9E44A-802A-23AD-493A-B35D0842FED8](http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84E9E44A-802A-23AD-493A-B35D0842FED8) > > **“Peer-Reviewed Articles Skeptical Of Man-Caused Global Warming”:** > > [Pete'sPlace On Global Warming/Climate Change: Peer-Reviewed Articles Skeptical Of Man-Caused Global Warming](http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2008/04/peer-reviewed-articles-skeptical-of-man.html) > > **“‘Global Warming Will Stop,’ New Peer-Reviewed Study Says > Global Warming Takes a Break for Nearly 20 Years?”:** > > [http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord\_id=a17defa8-802a-23ad-4912-8ab7138a7c3f](http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=a17defa8-802a-23ad-4912-8ab7138a7c3f) > > **“An Inadvertent Study Shows All 20 IPCC Models Flawed”:** > > [http://yelnick.typepad.com/politick/2009/03/an-inadvertent-study-shows-all-20-ipcc-models-flawed.html](http://yelnick.typepad.com/politick/2009/03/an-inadvertent-study-shows-all-20-ipcc-models-flawed.html) > > **“How to see for yourself the ‘Global Warming’ climate models are false”:** > > [http://peacelegacy.org/articles/how-see-yourself-global-warming-climate-models-are-false](http://peacelegacy.org/articles/how-see-yourself-global-warming-climate-models-are-false) > > **“Global Warming Models are Inherently Flawed”:** > > [http://www.jonathanbrun.com/2009/05/global-warming-models-flawed.html](http://www.jonathanbrun.com/2009/05/global-warming-models-flawed.html) > > **“IPCC ‘global warming’ model is flawed”:** > > [http://www.energypublisher.com/article.asp?id=11546](http://www.energypublisher.com/article.asp?id=11546) > > **“Study: Today’s global warming models cannot predict known, historical warming trends”:** > > [http://www.geek.com/articles/news/study-todays-global-warming-models-cannot-predict-known-historical-warming-trends-20090715/](http://www.geek.com/articles/news/study-todays-global-warming-models-cannot-predict-known-historical-warming-trends-20090715/) > > **“ICECAP data: global cooling continues; climate models seriously flawed”:** > > [http://www.nbcaugusta.com/weather/news/43402292.html](http://www.nbcaugusta.com/weather/news/43402292.html) I’ve got some bad news for you, **jrodefeld** : 1. Not a single one of your links goes to a peer-reviewed article. A peer-reviewed article [looks like this](http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL039186.shtml). Note the title of the paper, the names and credentials of the authors, the abstract, the information about the submission and review, and the citation information. That’s how you identify peer-reviewed papers. The things you are linking to are not peer-reviewed papers. 2. Two of your links go to Senate Press releases. Politicians have been known to lie from time to time. I know it’s shocking and unpleasant, but that’s just how it is. 3. Most of the rest of your links go to blogs and personal web pages. 4. In direct contradiction to what you said, none of those links mention any scientist disputing anthropogenic global warming. For the most part, in the rare instance when they have anything to say at all, they are quibbling about minor points in the climate models. I don’t have time to investigate all of them, but why would I bother? Climate models are not really relevant to this debate. Global warming is occuring. I can see the evidence just by looking out my window. The mountains of Virginia have no snow. When I was young, they were typically snow-covered as late as May. While it’s nice to know that there’s a rock-solid scientific consensus that this is caused by human activity, it’s not really necessary. > [@](#): > > Admit that there is no scientific consensus. Why don’t you first show me some evidence that there isn’t a scientific consensus? > [@](#): > > I could do this all day, posting links to peer reviewed papers You haven’t posted a single link to a peer reviewed paper yet. In fact, given your insistence on talking about peer reviewed papers while not providing any, some people might doubt that you even know what a peer reviewed paper is. (On the other hand, you didn’t link to any Holocaust deniers in this post; I guess that’s a slight improvement.) > [@](#): > > The capacity for some people to deny reality is truly staggering. Why yes, it is. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-factual-argument-against-global-warming-cap-and-trade-and-the-copenhagen-treaty/533049/129 "2010-03-22T21:55:51Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > I’m sorry, but if you don’t think there are some powerful men who would like to see a world government, then you must really be uninformed about the nature of corporatism, the history of the United Nations and the concept of Fractional Reserve Banking. It is not a conspiracy theory. Its just the natural progression of government growth and power. There is a continual consolidation of power among fewer and fewer hands. I don’t think you could really argue that this hasn’t happened over the last 50-60 years of our history. I want to separate this from any other “New World Order” theory you may have heard. Did you know that the richest 700 people on the planet have more personal wealth than the bottom 3 billion combined? The very notion that some of these men may “make plans in secret” makes one a loon and a crazy person according to our national media. But I am not a conspiracy theorist. There are many mainstream news articles that detail the efforts of some men to use the threat of global warming and the Copenhagen Treaty in particular to push for a world government system. Consider these links: > > [http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/beware-the-uns-copenhagen-plot/story-e6frg6qx-1225791869745](http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/beware-the-uns-copenhagen-plot/story-e6frg6qx-1225791869745) > > [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/27/green-world-government/](http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/27/green-world-government/) > > [http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/flannerys\_hope\_a\_global\_treaty\_to\_influence\_your\_every\_move/](http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/flannerys_hope_a_global_treaty_to_influence_your_every_move/) > > [The ABCs Of The Copenhagen Climate Change Treaty -- A World Government, Brutal New World Taxes And The Creation Of 700 New Bureaucracies](http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=28266) If there are so many mainstream news articles that “detail the efforts of some men to use the threat of global warming and the Copenhagen Treaty in particular to push for a world government system”, then why can’t you link to any such article? The first three links all go to editorials, not to news articles. They basically insist that they have access to a secret document that proves your claim, but they don’t give us anyway to verify that “the document” exists. (In fact, they don’t even specify what it is.) The fourth one goes to a website which believers that the government is trying to sterilize males by dumping chemicals in our drinking water. If you want us to believe that you’re not into batty conspiracy theories, you probably shouldn’t link to stuff like that. > [@](#): > > There are many others. Remember I’m not talking about the “New World Order” or the “Illuminati” or the JFK assassination, I’m taking about bankers and UN people planning a massive expansion of international power with an international police force. I’m talking about the plans to replace the dollar as the reserve currency with a new international currency, possibly SDRs. Some links to back that up: > > [http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE52T64520090331](http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE52T64520090331) > > [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans\_pritchard/5096524/The-G20-moves-the-world-a-step-closer-to-a-global-currency.html](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/5096524/The-G20-moves-the-world-a-step-closer-to-a-global-currency.html) > > [At G20, Kremlin to Pitch New Currency - Global ResearchGlobal Research - Centre for Research on Globalization](http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12798) > > [http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=axEnb\_LXw5yc](http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=axEnb_LXw5yc) > > So, we are talking about 700 international bureaucracies, a world tax, a possible world currency, and a world police force. If this doesn’t sound like world government, what does? Its not some sinister “plot”, its just the evaluation of the facts. Unlike you, I have actually read much of the Copenhagen Treaty (at least the draft that was leaked in December) and I see what they are working on. Come on. Wake up. None of those links mention global warming. Try harder. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-factual-argument-against-global-warming-cap-and-trade-and-the-copenhagen-treaty/533049/130 "2010-03-22T22:57:34Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > There are too many people on this earth for it to support without ruining its natural systems. How do you know that? ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2010, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-factual-argument-against-global-warming-cap-and-trade-and-the-copenhagen-treaty/533049/131 "2010-03-23T03:32:19Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > For the umpteenth time, warning that the population increase is the big reason of the problem does not \*\*magically \*\*remove the need to control CO2 or other GW gas emmisions. > > [http://www.sierraclub.org/population/factsheets/pop\_and\_globalwarming.asp](http://www.sierraclub.org/population/factsheets/pop_and_globalwarming.asp) > > And I think our species still has plenty of room to consume intelligently and still support a good number of people (Again, this does not remove a constant warning: stop making too many mouths to feed people!) > [http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/3/pSdnycHfLnQ](http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/3/pSdnycHfLnQ) This doesn’t strike you as comically naive and inadequate (from your first cite)? _“We must all work together to advocate for federal policies that reduce our fossil fuel dependence, promote renewable wind and solar energy sources, and encourage individuals to live in ways that have less impact on the planet. We must also work to slow population growth by increasing access to voluntary family planning and reproductive health programs so that families are better able to choose the number and spacing of their children. The Sierra Club’s Global Population and Environment Program supports efforts to empower women and families through education about responsible reproductive health and natural resource use— vital components of the global goal to secure a healthier environmental future.”_ (cue Lost Horizon’s ShangriLa music here) I won’t insult you by linking to projections of greenhouse gases from the developing world in coming years–and of course that’s where all the population expansion is taking place. While it’s lovely to make vapid statements like “consume intelligently” I’d like to know which part of your proposed nirvana has a history of doing that? ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2010, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-factual-argument-against-global-warming-cap-and-trade-and-the-copenhagen-treaty/533049/132 "2010-03-23T03:33:33Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > How do you know that? Just a lucky guess based on what I’ve seen so far. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2010, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-factual-argument-against-global-warming-cap-and-trade-and-the-copenhagen-treaty/533049/133 "2010-03-23T03:50:17Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > This doesn’t strike you as comically naive and inadequate (from your first cite)? > > _“We must all work together to advocate for federal policies that reduce our fossil fuel dependence, promote renewable wind and solar energy sources, and encourage individuals to live in ways that have less impact on the planet. > We must also work to slow population growth by increasing access to voluntary family planning and reproductive health programs so that families are better able to choose the number and spacing of their children. The Sierra Club’s Global Population and Environment Program supports efforts to empower women and families through education about responsible reproductive health and natural resource use— vital components of the global goal to secure a healthier environmental future.”_ > (cue Lost Horizon’s ShangriLa music here) > > I won’t insult you by linking to projections of greenhouse gases from the developing world in coming years–and of course that’s where all the population expansion is taking place. While it’s lovely to make vapid statements like “consume intelligently” I’d like to know which part of your proposed nirvana has a history of doing that? And? As you are still missing it: Nothing of what you are saying (And I think that the real naive thing is that you think that I and many others ignore the population issue) stops what the scientists are saying regarding AGW, I do agree that population needs to be controlled, deal with the fact that many already do take the population issue into account, you are still pretending that just by magic we should ignore the results of not doing anything. But now that we can hope to get to business, one of the things that needs to be changed in the cap-n-trade is precisely to give better incentives to those developed nations to not follow the same path of indiscriminately releasing CO2 and other greenhouse gases. (That is the point if you have not noticed, those projections you mention are from the ones were the developing countries or we do little or nothing.) ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2010, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-factual-argument-against-global-warming-cap-and-trade-and-the-copenhagen-treaty/533049/134 "2010-03-23T12:17:30Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Well, once again Al Gore is mentioned. > > As the science reporter here points out, Al Gore is not a scientist. And it is considered a believer and a counterpoint to deniers. Proponents and skeptical scientists are a different ball of wax. I don’t think anyone positions Mr Gore as a scientist. He does represent a nice archetype of what most of us do with our Great Causes, whether we’re the Crusader or the Pope. We get all riled up. We sally forth. We defend the Faith. Then we buy the nicest seat we can, on a private jet if possible; we buy a bigger home for our family; we acquire another set of golf clubs (OK; in the **Pedant** ’s case, a fifth set of golf clubs)…in short we personally live as large as possible while we fret over the world’s collective carbon footprint. We are much like a Crusader for the Great Cause of Christianity finding himself willing to overindulge in women and wine along the course of his outing to convert the heathen from their wicked ways. I raise Al Gore’s name not as an ad hominen attack on those concerned about AGW nor to pretend he is a representative scientist, but simply as a comment on how well he demonstrates human nature. I think the text of the post in which I mentioned his name makes that clear: _“A cursory glance over some of the heroes of the AGW movement (with Mr Gore as the exhibit A caricature) show that we are only interested in hoping the other guy picks up the nomadic lifestyle. For ourselves we will choose comfort over tents; jets over buses; first over coach. Each of us will have a rationale for why we should be the exception.”_ ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2010, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-factual-argument-against-global-warming-cap-and-trade-and-the-copenhagen-treaty/533049/135 "2010-03-25T00:58:21Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > I don’t have a good answer for overpopulation any more than I’d have a good answer for an earth-destroying comet headed our way. That it is unsolvable does not diminish its position as Problem #1. I had the sense that you are concerned there is some sort of “men in power” cabal considering draconiam measures to depopulate the world. Pap. > > It is the case that we are using up the planet, despite your comments that numbers of people is not the problem. Of course it is. We are not going to give up living better so that the world can support more people or so that future generations will have more resources (or a cooler world) left for them. > > A cursory glance over some of the heroes of the AGW movement (with Mr Gore as the exhibit A caricature) show that we are only interested in hoping the other guy picks up the nomadic lifestyle. For ourselves we will choose comfort over tents; jets over buses; first over coach. Each of us will have a rationale for why we should be the exception. > > AGW is, on average, a Great Cause. (For that matter, anti-AGW is also a Great Cause these days.) Great Causes are driven by the sense of significance they give to their devotees. The need to find that significance is what drives the embracing of one position or another; not the other way around. Ultimately every “fact” promoting one’s particular Great Cause is heartily embraced; every opposing “so-called fact” is seen as anomaly or distortion or confusion. > > Most of us are Don Quixotes to varying degrees, tilting at windmills for the Cause du Jour. For this reason you will be able to enjoy the very passionate point by point debates here on the Dope, presented as if the schoolyard debates here were going to change the world. Yeah, overpopulation is a serious problem. But I think we have to be realistic in determining how significant the threat is. How many people do you think the earth could support? If we all lived very simple lifestyles and didn’t over consume, it would obviously be a lot more. What about if everyone on the planet lived a reasonably comfortable middle class life (American middle class standards), how many could the world support? I think the reason people don’t buy apocalyptic warnings is that so many past predictions have been false. They said the world would run out of food. It didn’t, we determined more efficient means of food production. Predictions of environmental alarmists have been wrong time and time again. I personally believe we can raise the standards of living of the third world and poorer countries roughly to comfortable american middle class standards if the very wealthy corporations, the military industrial complex, and abusive governments around the world would curb _their_ destructive, wasteful consumption. I think its very dangerous to conclude that in the name of saving the environment we must reject the efforts to industrialize the third world and allow those less fortunate to experience the same quality of life you and I take for granted. Yet, that is what the Copenhagen Treaty, if and when they sign it, would effectively mean for the world as a whole. If we do accept the premise that overpopulation is a serious and imminent threat what could we possibly do about it? Do you agree with me to strongly oppose any efforts by governments around the world to “take steps” to reduce the population of their citizens? Also, if we do nothing, what would be the outcome of overpopulation on this planet? What is the catastrophic consequence down the road? I would expand this question to the general issue of global warming. What is the worst case scenario if we allow Co2 emissions to rise in a slow but steady trajectory over the next fifty-sixty years? I think that nature would not allow us to expand beyond a certain point. I am reminded of a classic George Carlin bit he did about “saving the planet”. I think it sums up my views pretty well: ![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/eScDfYzMEEw/maxresdefault.jpg)https://www.youtube.com/embed/eScDfYzMEEw?feature=oembed&wmode=opaque There have been many species of animals of all numbers through many eons of existence which have come and gone. I think we should take a little longer term view of whats going on today. People like to take current trends and project them out indefinitely into the future. Whether we do anything or not, our population will not expand indefinitely until the planet dies. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2010, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-factual-argument-against-global-warming-cap-and-trade-and-the-copenhagen-treaty/533049/136 "2010-03-25T01:38:38Z")
> [@](#): > > The main point here is: How can we talk about factual arguments when your arguments are based on misleading information? Then we still have the issue that you still do not demonstrate that you can learn to avoid what was already dismissed or debunked. Or that you understand why the papers that you think are important help your cause. > > Once again, check what others have done before, stop reheating baloney. Only by understanding the basis of the science is that then one can sincerely discuss what should be the reasonable political thing to do. I am going to agree with you partially with regards to this petition. It is certainly not a fraud nor has it been “debunked”. But, given the nature of these types of petitions, the accuracy and qualifications of each signer is hard to determine. And if, like you have said, the paper attached to the petition that was sent out was misleading and not at all impartial, it doesn’t really matter. Do you think any scientist who would sign this petition would be swayed by a single paper? The question was if they agreed with this statement: “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause _catastrophic_ heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” And, as you have said, there were some fake names added to the list, but when discovered, they were removed. As far as the qualifications of the signers, ALL atmospheric scientists should have significant expertise in understanding the science of climate change. I agree “veterinarian” or other medical qualifications are not acceptable for an educated view on this subject, but those holding Ph.ds in Earth sciences, Oceanography and many others have vital knowledge of the science and processes behind climate change. So, are you prepared to discredit ANYONE who signed this petition? There are a few other petitions covering similar subjects and they are not immune to a certain level of abuse and fraud (fake names and such). Yet they are a means in which a scientist who disagrees with the IPCC can express himself or herself. So, in no way has this petition been “Debunked”. There have been legitimate criticisms of the methods by which it was established. Linking to this petition is only a minor point underlying a major point about the “consensus”. What is the consensus? That Global Warming is occuring? I believe that. That man contributes to it? I even believe _that_. Now, if you tell me that there is an overwhelming consensus that man is primarily driving Global Warming and that if immediate action (Cap and Trade) is not enacted, our very chance of survival on this planet will be in jeopardy within 50-100 years, I will say that you are full of shit. If you noticed on the petition, you could sign it if you believe in global warming and that humans contribute to it. You would just reject that it will have catastrophic effects in the near term future. I don’ want to dwell on this aspect though. You believe your sources and I believe mine. I believe there is much more disagreement on the science than you do. Fine. The science would be a moot point if there were no significant steps we could take to mitigate the effects of global warming. So, why don’t you finally tell me what you think of the Copenhagen Treaty, and Cap and Trade as a means to supposedly “fix” this problem? And could you finally tell me what your views about the bankers financing of the environmental movement, the involvement of radicals like John P. Holdren, those who would establish a world government in the name of fighting “pollution”, 700 international bureaucracies, a world police and a world tax? The implications are immense. This is the real problem. Why wouldn’t the politicians use even a real and valid issue to push through a different agenda? THAT is the point you keep missing as you and I keep debating the minutiae of the science. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2010, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-factual-argument-against-global-warming-cap-and-trade-and-the-copenhagen-treaty/533049/137 "2010-03-25T01:57:55Z")
> [@](#): > > You evidently are not familiar with how to make cites on this board. We do not proceed by just posting dozens of links and letting others try to figure out which ones to follow. Instead, you should post the actual quotes to back up your arguments. I’ve followed the links and haven’t really read anything to back up your claims. Moreover, all three of these websites are full of ranting about the United Nations, one world government, the NWO, the Illuminati, the Jewish bankers, etc… Exactly the same sort of batty conspiracy theories that you insist are entirely different from the ones you’re making. Post links to credible sources and then quote the important parts here. Nowhere in those links did I see anything about the “Illuminati”. I didn’t pull out only a couple paragraphs, because people need to read a bit more to really understand who Maurice Strong is. Somebody on this thread claimed he was not an important part of the environmental movement. If you have read ANYTHING about him, you would see that is false. I just wanted to provide a few links which gave a bit of background about him. As far as what you characterize “conspiracy theories”, sometimes people like to denigrate things they don’t understand by labeling them a “crackpot”, “tin-foil hat theory”, or other names to cover for their own lack of knowledge of a subject. Nowhere in my post or in those links (that I saw) made mention of the Illuminati, JFK assassination, 9/11 Truth, Shape Shifting Reptilians, or anything of the sort. What is TRUE and documented is the following: There are plans to create a system of world government. (Whatever you want to call it. New World Order, whatever) Our financial system is truly international, with our Federal Reserve interacting in secret with central banks around the world. There are plans being made to replace the dollar with a world central bank and world currency. I have already provided links to back this up. As far as criticisms of the United Nations are concerned, it depends on whether you feel it is an effective and vital organization. I personally feel we have ceded a certain percentage of our sovereignty to the United Nations (we go to war under UN resolutions). I feel this could be dangerous. You have to make your own call. If you really think these things are crazy, why not prove me wrong? I think those links established very clearly that Maurice Strong is the most important and influential UN figure in the environmental movement. He was responsible for the Kyoto Protocol, instrumental in the Rio Summit, and established the IPCC. I think the best that could be said about Maurice Strong is that he is an opportunistic businessman rather than a humanitarian. Feel free to do some more research on Maurice Strong to learn more about him. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2010, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-factual-argument-against-global-warming-cap-and-trade-and-the-copenhagen-treaty/533049/138 "2010-03-25T02:03:09Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > You’re right. The scientific arguments have still yet to begin. Why don’t you contribute something, ANYTHING to this discussion? I have made a lot of points and posted a lot of links and so have many others. The discussion has been going on, you just haven’t joined in yet. How about you reread my original post and give your point by point rebuttal of my arguments? If you are not going to participate constructively, then you might as well just stay out of this thread entirely. Now, if you have some devastating retort to anything that I have said, don’t hold back. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2010, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-factual-argument-against-global-warming-cap-and-trade-and-the-copenhagen-treaty/533049/139 "2010-03-25T02:12:06Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > So, are you prepared to discredit ANYONE who signed this petition? No need to, once one acknowledges the even bigger number of scientists that agree that indeed there is a problem. > [@jrodefeld](#): > > So, in no way has this petition been “Debunked”. There have been legitimate criticisms of the methods by which it was established. The basic problem was that it was still based on reports and papers that now have less support. > [@](#): > > A large number of US scientists (to our direct knowledge: engineers, biologists, computer scientists and geologists) received a package in the mail this week. The package consists of a colour preprint of a ‘new’ article by Robinson, Robinson and Soon and an exhortation to sign a petition demanding that the US not sign the Kyoto Protocol. If you get a feeling of deja vu, it is because this comes from our old friends, the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and is an attempt to re-invigorate the highly criticised 1999 “Oregon Petition“. > > The article itself is just an update of the original article, minus an author (Baliunas), with a switch of Robinson children (Zachary’s out, Noah is in), but with a large number of similar errors and language. As in previous case, this paper too, is not peer reviewed. > [@jrodefeld](#): > > Linking to this petition is only a minor point underlying a major point about the “consensus”. What is the consensus? That Global Warming is occuring? I believe that. That man contributes to it? I even believe _that_. Now, if you tell me that there is an overwhelming consensus that man is primarily driving Global Warming and that if immediate action (Cap and Trade) is not enacted, our very chance of survival on this planet will be in jeopardy within 50-100 years, I will say that you are full of shit. And that is ok, because I have not said that, and it is hard to find a scientific organization saying all that. What you have there is a straw man argument. > [@jrodefeld](#): > > If you noticed on the petition, you could sign it if you believe in global warming and that humans contribute to it. You would just reject that it will have catastrophic effects in the near term future. When you notice that they concentrate on “near term future” you know that even skeptics suspect that just after that (Whatever they meant by near future) the situation is serious. > **[FAQ](https://lomborg.com/faq)** > [@](#): > > Q: Does Lomborg deny man-made global warming exists? > > A: No. In Cool It he writes: “global warming is real and man-made. It will have a serious impact on humans and the environment toward the end of this century” (p8). > [@jrodefeld](#): > > I don’ want to dwell on this aspect though. You believe your sources and I believe mine. I believe there is much more disagreement on the science than you do. Fine. The science would be a moot point if there were no significant steps we could take to mitigate the effects of global warming. So, why don’t you finally tell me what you think of the Copenhagen Treaty, and Cap and Trade as a means to supposedly “fix” this problem? Before doing that, lets see some points an skeptical scientist even told the Heritage Foundation: [http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/14/QwnrpwctIh4](http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/14/QwnrpwctIh4) “Global warming is real and humans are a part of it” “Do not use points like “it stopped warming since 1995 or 1998” you will kill us all\*” (\*All serious people that want to appear as skeptics and not deniers, that is.) So, do you agree with him, or not? And why? > [@jrodefeld](#): > > And could you finally tell me what your views about the bankers financing of the environmental movement, the involvement of radicals like John P. Holdren, those who would establish a world government in the name of fighting “pollution”, 700 international bureaucracies, a world police and a world tax? The implications are immense. This is the real problem. Why wouldn’t the politicians use even a real and valid issue to push through a different agenda? THAT is the point you keep missing as you and I keep debating the minutiae of the science. Sorry, that would be acceptable if there was not going to be a “serious impact on humans and the environment” if nothing is done. If one is serious about the issue, then one has to acknowledge the evidence and then tell politicians that items like biodiesel from corn are a stupid idea, for example (I’m getting tired of making the point that I’m really skeptical of many of the proposed solutions and several items in cap-n-trade). And if a bureaucracy appears, we have to fight to ensure it is a fair one. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2010, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-factual-argument-against-global-warming-cap-and-trade-and-the-copenhagen-treaty/533049/140 "2010-03-25T02:21:46Z")
Missed the link for the quote regarding the Oregon Petition: > **[RealClimate: Oregon Institute of Science and Malarkey](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/oregon-institute-of-science-and-malarkey/)** > > RealClimate: A large number of US scientists (to our direct knowledge: engineers, biologists, computer scientists and geologists) received a package in the mail this week. The package consists of a colour preprint of a 'new' article by Robinson,... More points against that petition: > [@](#): > > Just to get you started, all versions of the paper make a mistake in the dating of Keigwin’s Sargasso Sea record by 50 years (Figure 2 in early versions, Figure 1 now) since they do not notice that the published dates are in ‘years BP’ (Before Present) which is conventionally dated from 1950, not 2000. And that’s even without getting into the question of why this is the only paleo-record they highlight, or on what logical basis they put the ‘2006′ value on. > > In another example, the authors appear to think that human breathing out of CO2 is contributing to accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. (Actually since that carbon comes directly and indirectly from recent plants taking it out of the air, our breathing is carbon neutral). Additionally, they take the ratio of temperature change to CO2 change in the ice core record and assume that is the climate sensitivity of climate to CO2 as opposed to the other way around. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-factual-argument-against-global-warming-cap-and-trade-and-the-copenhagen-treaty/533049.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-factual-argument-against-global-warming-cap-and-trade-and-the-copenhagen-treaty/533049.md?page=8)