Obama Is About To Sign Away US Sovereignty

On page 7 of this treaty (bottom of page) notice the requirements for "deep cuts" in global ("greenhouse") emissions is only required of "developed" countries, of which the United states is the leader, essentially destroying our economy on the premise of the lie of global warming and climate change.

Deep cuts [by developed countries] [by all Annex I country Parties] [by all developed countries]
in global emissions by Parties in accordance with their historical responsibilities, as well as the principles....

It is scheduled to be signed in December in Copenhagen. If you don't want our economy and sovereignty to be destroyed in the US, ask your congressman to tell Obama NOT to sign this treaty!

http://www.globalclimatescam.com/?p=572

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMe5dOgbu40

I do agree that the climate change threat is an overblown crisis. Imo, BOTH sides; the environmentalists AND the industrialists have distorted the facts and issues to serve their own interests.

However, increased carbon emissions is acidifying the oceans and threatens ocean habitats and fisheries, so carbon emissions are a cause for concern.

The most important relevant issue is that the US, Canada, Australia and some other wealthy nations are chewing through natural resources far too fast. Other nations, like China and India are quickly catching up. We are not living in a sustainable manner, and this threatens the well-being of future generations.

Carbon emissions generated per capita is a great way of demonstrating resource use. The US is the greatest emissions producer, by far, and, on a per-capita basis, the largest producer of any significant size.

Click here. (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_co2_emi_percap-environment-co2-emissions-per-capita)

Reducing carbon emissions is one way to put a more realistic value on the environmental impact of our consumerist decisions. If we burn gasoline or buy too many consumer products, we should be held accountable for the environmental damage that it does.

Will the treaty affect the economy? Notmuch, in the long run. Over the past 200+ years, the US economy has been remarkably resilient and flexible in its ability to adapt to change. For example, in the 1850's, millions of American thought the abolition of slave labor would destroy the economy. It didn't.

Since then, threats like the great Depression, the Communists, Germany, Japan, Korea (and now China), workplace automation, the PC, industrial robots, Free Trade (NAFTA), creeping socialism, EPA, the national debt, Medicare, hurricanes etc were all trumpeted as threats to the US economy. The US economy was largely able to overcome the effects of such threats through flexibility and innovation.

Imo this carbon threat should be viewed as an opportunity. US industry is perfectly capable of developing new technologies to meet this "threat" and turn it to their advantage, through exporting new technologies, products and procedures to other countries.

I am not saying that the US should blithely acquiesce to everything in Copenhagen, but we all need to change our standards of living and expectations to live in a more sustainable way, for the sake of future generations.

[quote]However, increased carbon emissions is acidifying the oceans and threatens ocean habitats and fisheries, so carbon emissions are a cause for concern.

Well MR, here is my "boquet" of sites that debunk the "global warming"/carbon emissions myth:


http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82829

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-440049/Greenhouse-effect-myth-say-scientists.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,192544,00.html

http://www.speakwithoutinterruption.com/site/2009/09/why-do-world-leaders-support-the-co2-greenhouse-gas-myth/

http://papundits.wordpress.com/2008/08/05/per-capita-carbon-emissions-myth/

Well MR, here is my "boquet" of sites that debunk the "global warming"/carbon emissions myth:


:banghead: CL8, the global warming and ocean acidification issues are entirely different. Your sites simply focus on global warming. I AGREE with you that the global warming issue is overblown and is not supported by solid evidence yet.

My post had nothing to do with global warming, so you are not actually de-bunking anything I wrote. :)

Isn't that nice, we actually are not arguing for once, even though you seem to think we should!! :smooch:

Go back and review my stunningly perceptive post please. I am addressing excessive use of the earth's resources by the wealthy west (last time I looked, gluttony was a sin!) and an all-around unsustainable (and thus immoral) lifestyle. Respectfully, I thought this interpretation would have meaning for you. It does for me.

I did also mention the growing acidification of the oceans. Unlike global warming, this is a very real problem and affects ocean habitats and coral reef ecosystems. This problem is caused by increased CO2, but is unrelated to global warming. Your sites did not de-bunk this issue, because it's true and demonstrable but is usually ignored because the news media is too busy exploiting the more popular warming issue .. :)

If you do not know about it, please read these.

http://www.nrdc.org/oceans/acidification/
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/307961384
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090201124553.htm
http://www.naturalnews.com/020007_oceans_emissions_ocean_acidification.html

[quote=CL8;6060035]

[quote] I did also mention the growing acidification of the oceans. Unlike global warming, this is a very real problem and affects ocean habitats and coral reef ecosystems. This problem is caused by increased CO2, but is unrelated to global warming. :smile: Your sites did not de-bunk this issue, because it's true and demonstrable

You are correct MagicRat, my bad!

here below are those sites that debunk ocean acidification!: :wink:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/31/ocean-acidification-and-corals/


http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/03/19/ocean-acidification-scam/

http://ilovecarbondioxide.com/2009/09/ocean-acidification-another-climate.html

http://thefellowshipofscientifictruth.blogspot.com/2008/10/carbon-dioxide-ocean-acidification-and.html

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/09/ocean-acidification.html

http://www.climatechangefraud.com/home/33-enviro-extremists/5484-prophet-of-doom-joe-romm-how-the-grinch-stole-halloween

http://www.care2.com/news/member/918337647/1279191

http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/03/19/toxic-seawater-fraud/

http://www.c3headlines.com/are-oceans-becoming-acidic/

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N22/EDIT.php

You know, CL8, did you actually read these articles before throwing them up here? Any debate is more about interpretation, balanced consideration and intelligent discussion of the issues. Simply blindly posting any old site that seems to support your hypothesis has little meaning.

1. Two of the articles were actually irrelevant to the issue. Others simply referenced sites that you had already posted, hence were duplicates.

2. When reviewing your sites, the authors seemed to be more incensed by the journalistic hysteria going on about the issue than the actual issue itself. I agree with them; hysteria is not useful, but does not alter the relevant facts of the situation.

3. Several of your sites included contributing comments from other readers, many of which de-bunk the very article you referenced, rendering them not credible.

4. Several of those sites rely on a flawed argument. They claim that geologic evidence shows the oceans had more CO2 millions of years ago, than they do now, without killing off sealife.... therefore, we should not worry about it now.

This is a flawed analogy. Sealife millions of years ago evolved to live in such conditions over a long period of time. Today, the risk is that we are changing the oceans so rapidly, there simply may be no chance for some critical sealife to evolve and adapt.

So, these articles simply miss the point of the argument and, again, are irrelevant and pointless.

5. The "buythetruth" site was the only one, imo that presented a reasonable case. However, one of the de-bunkers on one site said this, which sums up the arguments of your sites nicely.

This (discussion) is dominated by ignorance and speculation concerning global warming and ocean acidification. So much so that it is difficult to know where to start. Being skeptical is great, but several above seem to think that if they find a quote from a scientific paper that can be used to ‘refute’ warming or ocean acidification, then we should conclude these things are unimportant. This is the same as using a few days when the stock market rose last year to conclude that the recession never happened - it is wrong - read up on the scientific method (which is NOT to search for evidence to support your hypothesis.

As far as ocean carbonate chemistry goes, it is complex, but the acidification part of it is simple enough. Some of those above got it pretty much right. ALthough you may not believe in ocean acidification, your belief does not change the facts. There is no debate about acidification in the ocean. Methods to measure the increase in fossil fuel carbon dioxide by the ocean are so precise that it can be measured very accurately. There is no speculation required. It is undeniable that we have added lots of CO2 to the ocean. It is undeniable (again based on direct measurements) that it is causing the pH (~acidity) of the ocean to decrease (more acidic or less alkaline). Projections of how much more acidic are also large. It is estimated that the surface ocean pH has dropped by 0.1 units since preindustrial times (that is about 25-30% more acidic). Projections by the end of this century are for about another 0.4 units drop, or a 150 to 200% increase in acidity. This is more acidic that the oceans have been for many many millions of years, and the rate of change in acidity is very rapid. We know that the scale of change in ocean pH expected in the future will affect ocean organisms, but the severity of these effects are not known well. We do know that organisms vary in their tolerance to high CO2 levels (low pH). We don’t know how impacts on some groups will affect ocean food webs and ecosystems. Some taxa thrive with higher CO2 levels (mostly photosynthetic organisms). Most animals are stressed by increased CO2 levels, due to disruption of acid base balance, reduced calcification (for some taxa), respiratory stress, and other effects. Much research is focused now on how higher ocean carbon levels will affect individuals species - hopefully we can scale up studies of individuals to populations, communities, and ecosystems, since ecosystem level experiments are difficult. It would be nice to have some ability to predict likely effects of future CO2 scenarios on marine ecosystems and fisheries.

The bottom line - ocean acidification is real whether you like it, or believe it, or not. But we are not yet sure what effects it will have on marine critters. If you want to know more about it, read more of the literature with an open mind, not a mindset searching for a scrap to support your preconceived view. For general reading, find review articles and overview documents (e.g. the Royal Society Report on Ocean Acidification).

6. Finally, you have said nothing of the most significant reason for my post..... that is, excessive consumption of non-renewable resources is unsustainable and ultimately, immoral because it is detrimental for future generations. Imo, the best result of reduced CO2 emissions is to force many people in wealthy nations to change their lifestyle, to live more within the sustainable means of the planet, for the betterment of future generations.

This is my own personal, informed opinion, not something that came of a website and not something that some crank journalist told me.

I really am interested in your opinion on #6, please. No websites..... just what you think about this issue. :)

6. Finally, you have said nothing of the most significant reason for my post..... that is, excessive consumption of non-renewable resources is unsustainable and ultimately, immoral because it is detrimental for future generations. Imo, the best result of reduced CO2 emissions is to force many people in wealthy nations to change their lifestyle, to live more within the sustainable means of the planet, for the betterment of future generations.O.K., first define "non renewable" resources. The big fraud is that even though water is technically a "renewable" resource, the government won't Allow some dams for electricity on rivers if they were built after a certain time.
Little parts of the law is what defines what is and is not renewable resources.
What proof is there that the consumption is "unsustainable"?

Here in the U.S. we are sustained very well, and I might add we recycle things like aluminum, plastic and paper. We ARE responsible with the resources we use to a very large degree.

It is not hard for me to see there is just a mind set in government leaders that will do and say ANYTHING to have more control over peoples lives.

A person is excessively arrogant if they believe mankind has that much control over this planet and environment that they have the power to destroy it in the resources they use.

Mankind didn't create this planet, neither can mankind destroy it.

That's pretty much what I believe about it.

Landfills cannot be closed down,there are manufacuring plants powered by the methane gas made by the landfills.One was shown on Penn and Teller: BS!There is no such as global warming and has not been proven.Most of the scrap metal,steel is going to China since they are building new cities and scrap cast iron went to Korea.It is not worth taking scrap metal in now,the prices of scrap aluminum,steel and cast iron is down which has not got better.It includes catalytic converters and aluminum wheels.Price of a junk GM catalytic conveter was $150.00 and is now $50.00 sold to catalytic converter buyers.

O.K., first define "non renewable" resources. The big fraud is that even though water is technically a "renewable" resource, the government won't Allow some dams for electricity on rivers if they were built after a certain time.
Little parts of the law is what defines what is and is not renewable resources.
What proof is there that the consumption is "unsustainable"?

Here in the U.S. we are sustained very well, and I might add we recycle things like aluminum, plastic and paper. We ARE responsible with the resources we use to a very large degree.

It is not hard for me to see there is just a mind set in government leaders that will do and say ANYTHING to have more control over peoples lives.

A person is excessively arrogant if they believe mankind has that much control over this planet and environment that they have the power to destroy it in the resources they use.

Mankind didn't create this planet, neither can mankind destroy it.

That's pretty much what I believe about it.

So are you saying that we are not running out of oil and can keep continuing to use it forever?

So are you saying that we are not running out of oil and can keep continuing to use it forever? Prove otherwise. You cannot.

The only reason the U.S. needs to import oil now is because government regulation forbids oil companies from drilling for and producing oil on U.S. land and territories!

The "renewable" energy sources widely talked about are solar, wind, geothermal and hydroelectric.
While they are good to use for energy sources, they have a limited capacity for use.

For instance, in Portland Oregon they put solar powered parking meters on the streets. Guess what happens to them on those cloudy days when there is not enough sunlight (there all a lot of those days in the Northwest) They don't work! There is not sufficient sunlight to power them!
Wind power is insufficient because there isn't always enough wind.
Geothermal power is limited to certain areas near tectonic plates in the earth.
And not every area is blessed (like the Northwest) with rivers and water ways for hydroelectric power. Even in those areas the environmentalists fight against the dams needed to produce the power!!!

It is so clear to those who look for the truth to see the fraud and lies in the global warming, carbon emissions scam.:shakehead

CL8, I don't think you understand some fundamental definitions here.

Renewable resources are things that can be easily replaced, like wood, food products, fresh water etc. The problem here is that there is not an infinite amount of land to grow stuff, nor are there an infinite amount of rivers etc. One can over-use a renewable resource and end up destroying it. Some people are very concerned that over-fishing in the worlds oceans is reducing fish stocks so much they cannot be replaced.

Non-renewable resources are things that cannot be replaced easily, like minerals, oil and coal. All of these resources are limited. There may be lots of them out there, but they are finite.
For example, in the first half of the twentieth century, Texas was covered in oil wells. Most of them are gone now, because there is very little recoverable oil left there. It's all been pumped out. Now they must drill in the Gulf of Mexico, which is much more expensive than drilling on land. Eventually, all those wells will be dry too.... hence the term non-renewable.

There is lots of oil elsewhere, but with the planet consuming oil at approx. 60,000 barrels every minute, it will not last forever.

Look at peak oil as one example of this concept:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil

Now, we may not get through all the oil, coal, natural gas etc in our lifetime or even our grandchildrens lifetime. But imo, we owe it to future generations not to be excessively greedy and consume the resources and pollute the planet up beyond all redemption.
To do so is bad, greedy, gluttonous and sinful.

The vast majority of the world consumes far fewer resources than the average American (or Canadian). (Look here at GDP as a rough measure of spending and consumption) (http://www.worldfactsandfigures.com/gdp_country_desc.php) Even most people in Europe consume less, but still have a similar standard of living. They are better at conserving resources for future generations than we are. And this says something bad about us.

We also owe it to future generations to look after the planet. It is not ours to consume or screw up. It's irrelevant who made it. But we know future generations will NEED it, so everyone needs to be less selfish and more aware of their responsibilities. We do not NEED to drill in the national parks or off the west coast for oil, so lets leave it for our kids and learn to live without the mega-SUV.

BTW, this is not a liberal or conservative issue. It is a moral, ecological, economic and common - sense issue.


As for renewable electrical generation, it's complicated. The baseline (minimum required) for electrical power is well-suited for nuclear power generation. Renewable resources are best used when there are lots of sources. Hydroelectric, wind, solar, ocean tides, ocean wave generation, geothermal etc are all excellent, but limited. So take advantage of them all. The deficiencies in some are partly offset by others

There is still a need for some natural gas and coal generation, for peak consumption times. But these should be minimized.

One more thing. It's a myth that wind power is not suitable because it is not windy all the time. Think of a million windmills strategically placed around the country. If they are well placed, consistently, a given number of them will be running, because it will always be predictably windy in a certain percentage of the country. Canadian Hydro Developers runs about a dozen big windfarms in this country and is building many more. They have found that, as they build more windmills, they can rely consistently that 70% of them will be running at any one time.

Finally, do you know about the future of nuclear fusion?

MagicRat, while researching on the net I found a couple sites that tells about oil wells being refilled naturally, suggesting oil is NOT a finite resource as many have said.:

http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2009/10/what-if-oil-is-life-form-oil-wells-that.html

http://www.rense.com/general54/ssust.htm

I don't know much about nuclear fusion as a viable power source, but it seems that the technology has a long way to go before fusion can be widely used as a power source.

Also, why would you be concerned about the overuse of natural resources being "sinful"?
If there is no God, as you believe, there is no "sinful" action. :/

MagicRat, while researching on the net I found a couple sites that tells about oil wells being refilled naturally, suggesting oil is NOT a finite resource as many have said.:

http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2009/10/what-if-oil-is-life-form-oil-wells-that.html

http://www.rense.com/general54/ssust.htm

I don't know much about nuclear fusion as a viable power source, but it seems that the technology has a long way to go before fusion can be widely used as a power source.

Also, why would you be concerned about the overuse of natural resources being "sinful"?
If there is no God, as you believe, there is no "sinful" action. :/
The 'refilling' phenomenon does not indicate oil is infinite. It is still a finite, limited resource.

There are two reasons why this is the case:

1. There is a lot of oil underground that is not economically viable.... that is, it costs too much to extract that it's worth. So, for now, it's useless.
If or when oil get to be $400++ a barrel, for example, it may be worthwhile to extract it. But not now.

Therefore, we will never run out of oil. There will always be some there.... but we will eventually run out of oil that is economically viable to use.

That 'refilling' phenomenon is simply the unextractable oil slowly making its way closer to the surface. But so little of this is happening, we cannot rely on it to save us in our oil consuming ways.

2. Have you ever heard of the carbon cycle?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle

Crude oil are hydrocarbons and are largely made of carbon and hydrogen. The carbon to make the oil comes from decaying plant life that decays underwater. (Decaying plant life on land eventually turns into coal).

It takes hundreds of thousands of years for such biological matter to turn to oil, and even then, only under specific geological conditions. So, essentially, there are no new hydrocarbons being made, in any useful quantity.

Nuclear fusion will eventually become viable for use. It may take 25 - 50 years, but it will happen. A lot of money is being spent on this because the potential is so enormous, in terms of clean power generation.

Even the Saudis believe this to be so and are concerned. They believe the West will become less oil-dependent, leaving them to sell smaller quantities of oil to poorer nations who cannot afford fusion power.

So, I tend to have the view that much of the measures today, in terms of nuclear fission, wind, hydro dams etc are largely stop-gap measures until nuclear fusion generators are built in quantity. But this may take 100 years or so.... so long as we do not have an environmental, military or economic collapse :)

Finally, I thought the use of 'sin' might get your attention. Sure, god does not exist, but 'sin' does. "sin is lawlessness" (1 John 3:4) that can be a moral lawlessness, if not a judicial one.

Sinful thoughts are irrelevant, but sinful deeds are often committed against other people. Imo, there are many acts which technically are legal, but are immoral, in that they result in an excessive burden or intrusion into the lives of others, even the unborn.

This is why I maintain that humans can do things which are legal, (like waste resources,) but are morally sinful.

As an example.... even if we do tap vast new resovoirs of oil, as one of your linked article suggests what then?
The carbon released by us using that oil has to go somewhere. Currently it goes into the environment, mostly as carbon dioxide, causing unwanted changes which we are leaving for future generations of figure out. This is why, regardless of future oil discoveries, we have a moral obligation of develop more renewable sources of energy.

After my quick scan over this thread I have this to say.

Global warming is nothing new, in fact its been going on since Earth had an atmosphere. The global tempature avg. goes up and down and up and down. the global average is currently on an upstreak which is likely to end twords the end well after the end of all our lifetimes. (going up about a mere 2 degrees) After this increase however is what we should worry about. Just take a look at this

http://flowingdata.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/The_global_temperature_chart-545x409.jpg

So much for global warming

(doing a paper on this for school lol, good practice :D)

CO2 levels in the atmosphere are directly related to the levels in the ocean. So one thing that the increased CO2 is doing is killing plankton (most importantly phytoplankton) which is reducing the oxygen levels in our atmosphere. And killing off humpback whales (nooooooo!!!!)

EDIT: meh that graph is a little odd, heres a different one

http://www.drroyspencer.com/library/pics/2000-years-of-global-temperature.jpg