India and the Global Warming Debate

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 16 Dec 2009 01:48

sumi thanks! we are good!

EPA website on climate change, with lot of inventory data on GHG for US. Some simple to understand science and facts etc. Good place to start...

Climate Change

A website for skeptics, Republicans and conservatives (and everyone else to get a counterview on Climate change)

Speak out for america

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 16 Dec 2009 09:59

Al Gore, inventor of the internet, claims that if Global Warming is not stopped, all arctic ice will disappear in 5 years:

http://www.tgdaily.com/sustainability-f ... it-in-foot

It's fabulous environmental knowledge like this which has earned Gore the Nobel Prize, just as Obama's incredible achievements while in office have earned him the Nobel Prize.

(Seriously though, it's more like Gore's help in the war on Russia's Orthodox Serb cousins which earned him the accolades of the Atlanticists, just as Roosevelt's anti-Russian tilt in the Russo-Japanese War earned him similar Atlanticist gratitude.)

sumishi · Post by **sumishi** » 16 Dec 2009 11:19

Sanjay M wrote:Al Gore, inventor of the internet, claims that .....

Ehh!

When did this happen?

Sanjay M wrote:... accolades of the Atlanticists ...

What is this concept of Atlanticists?

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 16 Dec 2009 11:42

Katare wrote:
The number 350
Is it the most important number for the world?
Why the churche bells were ringing at 3:50 in Europe?

350

just that the present ACTUAL value is supposed to be 390

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 17 Dec 2009 01:18

Crosspost from from the S-e-S Copenhagen thread in the hot air forum-----

Ombaba & MMS are to arrive in Copenhagen on Friday, so here's the push on MMS to sign on to actual emission cuts:

Black Soot and the Survival of Tibetan Glaciers : Image of the Day http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/v ... rc=iotdssi
NASA - New Study Turns Up the Heat on Soot's Role in Himalayan Warming http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/featur ... rming.html
NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Survival of Tibetan Glaciers http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_14/
NASA - Soot is Key Player in Himalayan Warming; Looming Water Woes in Asia http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/featur ... -soot.html

The best way to solve this is to get more nuclear power, but wait the CTBT and NPT must be signed first. So, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 17 Dec 2009 01:44

ravi,
We crossed 350PPM in 1989-90; I think that's why all the global treaties/conferences focus on going below 1990 level of CO2/GHG i.e. below 350PPM.

450 is game over, drop dead limit as per most climate scientists while current GHG reduction offers will take us to over 550PPM as peaking GHG level. While below 350PPM is touted as safe GHG limit for keeping planet earth comfortably warm and cozy without the danger of melting ICe Caps.

Sanjay,
Political activist like Al Gore should not be taken on face value, their job is to scare the $hit outta general folks to get there attention to an otherwise galactically slow, boring and distant issue of climate change. You can ignore Al Gores on one side and Rush Limbaughs on the other since they cancel each other out.

Climate talks deadlocked as clashes erupt outside

It is becoming more and more a China vs West/USA war than anything else.

Today China is the biggest Polluter in the world and it'll add couple of USA worth of GHG by 2020 which would make it the biggest source of additional GHG till 2020.

As per Jairam Ramesh on TV, Chinese offer of 40-45% reduction in carbon intensity, from 2005 levels, per $ of GDP would still keep it's carbon intensity per unit GDP higher than India's carbon intensity in 2005. With 25% reduction is carbon intensity by 2020, India's Carbon intensity would be more than 25% lower than China's in that year. With much higher GDP, growth, finances and pollution levels, Chinese need to do better than what they have put on table.

I think if no curves/monitoring/peaking-year is attached to developing countries most of the heavy polluting industries would move to China (and to lesser extent India and rest of Asia) with little to no reduction in GHGs for the world.

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 17 Dec 2009 02:06

Katare,

I believe that this climate change is a hoax spread so as to stifle developing countries. So our starting points are diametrically opposite.

More than climate change nonsense, I believe that every man has an equal right to comfortable living and that this right trumps everything.

So a man in US has an equal right to live as comfortably as a man in Mozambique or Zimbabwe. This climate change summit is all about sacrificing that man in Mozambique for the sake of US man- which I cannot agree on in any conscience.

and oh ya, another thing, I believe those who did the crime are the ones who should pay, not somebody else.

P.S: I dont believe in sacrifice and that "Dharmo rakshita rakshitaha", it says for even Dharma to protect you, you have to protect Dharma.

joshvajohn · Post by **joshvajohn** » 17 Dec 2009 19:40

COPENHAGEN (Reuters) - A U.N.-backed system to pay poorer nations for saving or replanting their forests has made significant progress at climate talks in Denmark, the official who chairs talks on the scheme said on Wednesday.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BF5EF20091216

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 17 Dec 2009 19:48

sumishi wrote:
Sanjay M wrote:Al Gore, inventor of the internet, claims that .....
Ehh! When did this happen?

you don't know that ??

sumishi · Post by **sumishi** » 17 Dec 2009 20:17

Rahul M wrote:you don't know that ??

Hey ! Fill me in ! c'mon !!

joshvajohn · Post by **joshvajohn** » 17 Dec 2009 20:27

India should lead the climate change agreement

1. first all those countries which are on the top of the list in emission (including India) needs to declare that they will reduce the emission by 40 percent within 10 -20 years.

2. Secondly the technology for containing emission should be available at low price to the developing and poor nations

3. Third there should be some positive investment rather than donations for the developing countries should be available for green investment and protections for disasters and any other causes due to this climate changes.

4. The money for the climate change should be sent to this particular project only otherwise many countries they simply spend money for their own programmes and political groups such big money.

Copenhagen climate conference: Hillary Clinton attempts to break deadlock with $100bn offer
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenh ... offer.html

sumishi · Post by **sumishi** » 17 Dec 2009 20:41

joshvajohn wrote:...Copenhagen climate conference: Hillary Clinton attempts to break deadlock with $100bn offer
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenh ... offer.html

Now wait-a-minute! Didn't the East India Company convert the subcontinent into the Jewel in the Crown (by leaching us dry) after making humble beginnings through "offers?"

hmmm..

Over the years, the IMF, WB, WHO etc. have transformed Africa into the economic superpower that it is today. There is food aplenty with high per-capita income. I really trust my taxed money with these guys! They will do everything to meet the needs of the developing countries and the LDCs.

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 17 Dec 2009 22:10

Joshvajohn,

Help me in this, because I am not fill it with even lump change.

This Copenhagen deal is beneficial to India because .....................

1) Dont give any airy comments about the unscientific psuedo climate change hoax.

2) Dont give nonsense about some soft power hyperbole. I thought this was punctured long ago in 1962.

and yes, could you please cut your patronising tone?

Thanks

joshvajohn · Post by **joshvajohn** » 17 Dec 2009 22:27

Copenhagen negotiations back on track, says India
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 348953.cms

sumishi · Post by **sumishi** » 17 Dec 2009 22:32

X-posting from "S-e-S Redux: Copenhagen?"

Well, well, well !! Is the fog beginning to lift?
Rep. Rohrabacher's speech in the US House

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 17 Dec 2009 22:42

sumishi wrote:
Rahul M wrote:you don't know that ??
Hey ! Fill me in ! c'mon !!

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=al+gore+invented+the+internet

sumishi · Post by **sumishi** » 18 Dec 2009 10:13

आ बैल मुझे मार (Aaa Bael Mujhe Maar)
India flexible, US dangles dollars: 75% deal on norms to verify emission cuts

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 19 Dec 2009 09:48

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/19/scien ... imate.html

The deal eventually came together after a dramatic moment in which Mr. Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton burst into a meeting of the Chinese, Indian and Brazilian leaders, according to senior administration officials. Mr. Obama said he did not want them negotiating in secret.

The intrusion led to new talks that cemented central terms of the deal, American officials said.

So Obama basically barges into discussions between India, China and Brazil like some kind of lord?

If that guy had barged into a room where I was holding private discussions, I would have tossed him back out on his ear.

sumishi · Post by **sumishi** » 19 Dec 2009 11:08

Hey, these globalists can have their own secret behind-the-door meetings and hammer out "danish texts" to release at the last moment so that nations would have no time to discuss or negotiate before signing the deal, but if the developing countries band around to discuss these frauds for protecting their sovereign rights, its a no-no!

Good that the $100 billion-a-year-fund "carrot" (to be created by 2020) seems not to have paid off. All the while the globalist bureaucrats would have spent in "creating" this fund till 2020, the carbon tax (and this tax and that tax) would have become applicable on all countries and the "vampiric blood sucking" of the GDPs of all the countries by the IMF/WB would have begun ASAP.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 20 Dec 2009 05:57

BBC:

Cherrapunji Drying Up

sumishi · Post by **sumishi** » 20 Dec 2009 20:21

An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change

Antarctic ice is growing, not melting away

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 21 Dec 2009 08:16

How fitting is that when the global warming deal, now bandied as climate deal is being struck by force and armtwisting, the US is experiencing snow storm at historic levels of severity.

Hope there is no power crisis to top it which may lead to severe loss of life (as well as loss of face). It will be so difficult for the people from developing world, who are at the receiving end in climate deal, to express sympathy. What an f'ing irony it will be?

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 21 Dec 2009 08:57

Sunita Narain is impressive and articulate..Her interviews are worth watching. She talks abt how badly Global Warming will affect India.
"Climate Change is a real issue but the Western Countries caused this and need to pay".She calls Copenhagen the worst conference. She says the "breakdown in Copenhagan is because US wants to dismantle the Kyoto Protocol. India and China will be scapegoated". There is massive pressure to fix the deal.
"The rich nations want a deal where they have an agreement of pledge and review. US needs to cut 40%"

Please watch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSk7UVSu ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cqmFym_E3o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x221HwqmReU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwDJNYaR ... re=related

A quote
You(US) are putting 20 times per year more co2 in the atmosphere that your brothers and sisters in India. You've taken up all of their space for co2. And you Americans WANT TO FREEZE THIS RATIO.

sumishi · Post by **sumishi** » 21 Dec 2009 22:38

X Posting from "S-e-S Redux: Copenhagen?"

Fallout of Copenhagen: Enter the New World Order. That's what they have been planning for YEARS, ever since the formation of the UN. Do not for a moment assume that we will be immune. People can be easily bought at higher levels. Bharat-rakshaks, take note!!
There'll be nowhere to run from the new world government -- Telegraph.co.uk

There is scope for debate – and innumerable newspaper quizzes – about who was the most influential public figure of the year, or which the most significant event. But there can be little doubt which word won the prize for most important adjective. 2009 was the year in which "global" swept the rest of the political lexicon into obscurity. There were "global crises" and "global challenges", the only possible resolution to which lay in "global solutions" necessitating "global agreements". Gordon Brown actually suggested something called a "global alliance" in response to climate change. (Would this be an alliance against the Axis of Extra-Terrestrials?)

Some of this was sheer hokum: when uttered by Gordon Brown, the word "global", as in "global economic crisis", meant: "It's not my fault". To the extent that the word had intelligible meaning, it also had political ramifications that were scarcely examined by those who bandied it about with such ponderous self-importance. The mere utterance of it was assumed to sweep away any consideration of what was once assumed to be the most basic principle of modern democracy: that elected national governments are responsible to their own people – that the right to govern derives from the consent of the electorate.

The dangerous idea that the democratic accountability of national governments should simply be dispensed with in favour of "global agreements" reached after closed negotiations between world leaders never, so far as I recall, entered into the arena of public discussion. Except in the United States, where it became a very contentious talking point, the US still holding firmly to the 18th-century idea that power should lie with the will of the people.

Nor was much consideration given to the logical conclusion of all this grandiose talk of global consensus as unquestionably desirable: if there was no popular choice about approving supranational "legally binding agreements", what would happen to dissenters who did not accept their premises (on climate change, for example) when there was no possibility of fleeing to another country in protest? Was this to be regarded as the emergence of world government? And would it have powers of policing and enforcement that would supersede the authority of elected national governments? In effect, this was the infamous "democratic deficit" of the European Union elevated on to a planetary scale. And if the EU model is anything to go by, then the agencies of global authority will involve vast tracts of power being handed to unelected officials. Forget the relatively petty irritations of Euro‑bureaucracy: welcome to the era of Earth-bureaucracy, when there will be literally nowhere to run.

But, you may say, however dire the political consequences, surely there is something in this obsession with global dilemmas. Economics is now based on a world market, and if the planet really is facing some sort of man-made climate crisis, then that too is a problem that transcends national boundaries. Surely, if our problems are universal the solutions must be as well.

Well, yes and no. Calling a problem "global" is meant to imply three different things: that it is the result of the actions of people in different countries; that those actions have impacted on the lives of everyone in the world; and that the remedy must involve pretty much identical responses or correctives to those actions. These are separate premises, any of which might be true without the rest of them necessarily being so. The banking crisis certainly had its roots in the international nature of finance, but the way it affected countries and peoples varied considerably according to the differences in their internal arrangements. Britain suffered particularly badly because of its addiction to public and private debt, whereas Australia escaped relatively unscathed.

That a problem is international in its roots does not necessarily imply that the solution must involve the hammering out of a uniform global prescription: in fact, given the differences in effects and consequences for individual countries, the attempt to do such hammering might be a huge waste of time and resources that could be put to better use devising national remedies. France and Germany seem to have pulled themselves out of recession over the past year (and the US may be about to do so) while Britain has not. These variations owe almost nothing to the pompous, overblown attempts to find global solutions: they are largely to do with individual countries, under the pressure of democratic accountability, doing what they decide is best for their own people.

This is not what Mr Brown calls "narrow self-interest", or "beggar my neighbour" ruthlessness. It is the proper business of elected national leaders to make judgments that are appropriate for the conditions of their own populations. It is also right that heads of nations refuse to sign up to "legally binding" global agreements which would disadvantage their own people. The resistance of the developing nations to a climate change pact that would deny them the kind of economic growth and mass prosperity to which advanced countries have become accustomed is not mindless selfishness: it is proper regard for the welfare of their own citizens.

The word "global" has taken on sacred connotations. Any action taken in its name must be inherently virtuous, whereas the decisions of individual countries are necessarily "narrow" and self-serving. (Never mind that a "global agreement" will almost certainly be disproportionately influenced by the most powerful nations.) Nor is our era so utterly unlike previous ones, for all its technological sophistication. We have always needed multilateral agreements, whether about trade, organised crime, border controls, or mutual defence.

If the impact of our behaviour on humanity at large is much greater or more rapid than ever before then we shall have to find ways of dealing with that which do not involve sacrificing the most enlightened form of government ever devised. There is a whiff of totalitarianism about this new theology, in which the risks are described in such cosmic terms that everything else must give way. "Globalism" is another form of the internationalism that has been a core belief of the Left: a commitment to class rather than country seemed an admirable antidote to the "blood and soil" nationalism that gave rise to fascism.

The nation-state has never quite recovered from the bad name it acquired in the last century as the progenitor of world war. But if it is to be relegated to the dustbin of history then we had better come up with new mechanisms for allowing people to have a say in how they are governed. Maybe that could be next year's global challenge.

The implications are huge!! I request a new thread on this "New World Order!"

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 23 Dec 2009 08:02

sumishi · Post by **sumishi** » 23 Dec 2009 20:05

In the history of mankind, has there EVER been a hoax perpetuated with the target for a better tomorrow (in terms of benefit for all)?
A Hoax is defined as a "deliberate trickery intended to gain an advantage," and it is NOT for the common good!
But there are good simple folks who believe that that bullet list of "promises" stand to get delivered as portrayed.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 29 Dec 2009 07:01

German physicists attack Global Warming theories:

http://www.climategate.com/german-physi ... ing-theory

sumishi · Post by **sumishi** » 29 Dec 2009 12:08

Sanjay M wrote:German physicists attack Global Warming theories:
http://www.climategate.com/german-physi ... ing-theory

Great article! And this comment therein is hilarious -- "The First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics must be repealed for the survival of humanity."

AnimeshP · Post by **AnimeshP** » 30 Dec 2009 22:02

Uh Oh .... looks like France is having trouble with its carbon tax ...
French government rushes to revive carbon tax

French ministers scrambled on Wednesday to rescue a carbon tax aimed at cutting energy consumption, which was annulled by the Constitutional Court just 48 hours before it was due to come into force.

France's highest court stunned President Nicolas Sarkozy's government late on Tuesday by ruling against the tax, saying there were too many loopholes benefitting major industrial polluters.

sumishi · Post by **sumishi** » 31 Dec 2009 16:40

AnimeshP wrote:Uh Oh .... looks like France is having trouble with its carbon tax ...
French government rushes to revive carbon tax

French ministers scrambled on Wednesday to rescue a carbon tax aimed at cutting energy consumption, which was annulled by the Constitutional Court just 48 hours before it was due to come into force.

France's highest court stunned President Nicolas Sarkozy's government late on Tuesday by ruling against the tax, saying there were too many loopholes benefitting major industrial polluters.

Hah! Looks like people are waking up to the erstwhile planned (but hopefully failed) draconian agenda of the Copenhagen summit.

Well meaning people and mainstream media article authors have tended to confuse the issue of environmental degradation with what was actually being tried to be pushed through at Copenhagen. Even today I read some authors whining away in the newspapers about the failure at Copenhagen, and how India and other should have done this, and done that, for the future of humanity.

The future of humanity is assured only if people take their blinkers off, analyse the oft hidden undercurrents of events taking place, and have intelligence enough not to be taken in by the official propaganda machine. Alas, much too often we fall prey to the dictum "it doesn't matter what is being said, but who says it," and it is the stuff of which mankind's history is made.

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 11 Feb 2010 11:18

Given the entire NorthEast of US is reeling under intense cold weather for the past several days and resulting in historic levels of snow, I thought of bumping up this thread a little and remember the inventor of Internet and Global Warming evangelist Al Gore.

I wonder how embarrassed he feels when people ask these simple questions to him.

May God bless him and his ilk with lots and lots of snow

shaardula · Post by **shaardula** » 26 Feb 2010 04:12

here is very interesting paper by shri v.k. raina
A State-of-Art Review of Glacial Studies, Glacial Retreat and Climate Change

http://moef.nic.in/downloads/public-inf ... 20_him.pdf

Klaus · Post by **Klaus** » 27 Feb 2010 13:48

I was going through the Winter Olympics thread and bumped into a couple of postors who were talking of how hot Lindsey Vonn is, and then I came across this article:

How Vail is Making Skiing More Energy Efficient

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 28 Feb 2010 01:13

joshvajohn wrote: 1. first all those countries which are on the top of the list in emission (including India) needs to declare that they will reduce the emission by 40 percent within 10 -20 years.

2. Secondly the technology for containing emission should be available at low price to the developing and poor nations

3. Third there should be some positive investment rather than donations for the developing countries should be available for green investment and protections for disasters and any other causes due to this climate changes.

Wow, its amazing how clueless this guy is.

Here's how it works : Countries which are developed want to put road blocks in the path of countries which are developing. Start all suggestions with that premise in mind.

India is a developing country and as the economy grows, so too will emissions. Developed countries already have their industries and infrastructure built up so their emissions are stable or falling. Regardless their emiissions per capita are far higher than that of India. India cannot reduce its already low levels of emissions without destroying all prospects of development.

Developed countries have no intent of making anything available at low cost to developing countries. Quite the opposite in fact. They intend to keep costs sky high as a form of protectionism. The 100 fund is just a mirage intended to dupe some of the more foolish developing countries to climb onboard. When they do, they will find out there are no freebies and they have only raised the cost of their own production and signed onto a trade barrier against their own exports.

Clue in please, you are living in a fantasy world if you think countries are eager to help one another.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 28 Feb 2010 11:16

Neshant wrote: Developed countries have no intent of making anything available at low cost to developing countries. Quite the opposite in fact. They intend to keep costs sky high as a form of protectionism. The 100 fund is just a mirage intended to dupe some of the more foolish developing countries to climb onboard. When they do, they will find out there are no freebies and they have only raised the cost of their own production and signed onto a trade barrier against their own exports.

Clue in please, you are living in a fantasy world if you think countries are eager to help one another.

Very true and well said.

The goras earlier looted us illegally by colonizing and plundering.

The now want to loot us legally because we once again have the money. Civilizationally, they feel that we don't deserve anything but poverty. obama's tasteless screeching about the rising India and the number of engineers it produces is increasing evidence of the spreading paranoia. Others may not say it but the desperation in borne out by the numerous protectionist steps taken by various governments. Mostly anti Indian but fair enough.

Their gora ancestors did not have a single charitable bone in their collective bodies, why would their impoverished, apprehensive and aging descendants not have inherited the all important greed genes?

Their comfort and security has come at our cost. Why would they change the tried and tested system now?

We fought their wars, provided cheap labor and markets. They are convinced that we can once again be easily fooled.

The natives have always been bought off with a few baubles and trinkets. UN awards, nobels and suchlike are the modern equivalents.

Dhimmis like jairam ramesh and others high up the food chain are their point men in India.

With friends like these who needs enemies?

These idiots go to meetings all oiled up, bent over and ready to negotiate from a position of weakness.

All the strong cards that they hold are safely locked up in hotel rooms onleee.

Klaus · Post by **Klaus** » 05 Mar 2010 07:20

The global warming tale could be a convenient excuse for petro companies to carry out offshore drilling and exploration in the Arctic, searching for Azolla sites: Read it here. Sadly, burning of the Azolla product/residue is only going to release all the carbon which was trapped during the Eocene era (49 m.y.a). There is a widely held view among geologists that the Azolla was responsible for the cooling and glaciation of the earth, also that the planet had never been covered by ice caps on both poles before the Azolla event.

The oiropean country which is in max threat of going under in a worst case scenario (Netherlands) has invested heavily in Azolla research. Clicky.

Then again, Azolla could be the holy grail that we are all searching for, the "super plant" which can grow under the right conditions (about 20 hours of sunlight and 19 C) and maybe sequester enough carbon as we emit?

Fixation in biological soil crusts. Click on the pdf link to get the entire article.

Pranay · Post by **Pranay** » 09 Mar 2010 22:43

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/10/world ... te.html?hp

China and India Join Climate Accord
By JOHN M. BRODER
Published: March 9, 2010

WASHINGTON — China and India formally agreed to join the international climate change agreement reached last December in Copenhagen, the last two major economies to sign up.

The two countries, among the largest and fastest-growing sources of greenhouse gas emissions in the world, submitted letters to the United Nations agreeing to be included on a list of countries covered by the so-called Copenhagen Accord, a three-page nonbinding statement reached at the end of the contentious and chaotic 10-day conference.

China and India join more than 100 countries that have signed up under the accord, which calls for limiting the rise in global temperatures to no more than 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, beyond pre-industrial levels.

The inclusion of China and India in the accord has only a minor practical effect, but will provide a boost for the credibility of the agreement.

“After careful consideration, India has agreed to such a listing,” Reuters quoted India’s environment minister, Jairam Ramesh, as telling Parliament on Tuesday. “We believe that our decision to be listed reflects the role India played in giving shape to the Copenhagen accord. This will strengthen our negotiating position on climate change.”

Mr. Ramesh confirmed India’s action in an e-mail message.

India sent a letter on Monday to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the body responsible for international climate negotiations, stating its intent to join the Copenhagen accord.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 15 Apr 2010 07:32

^^^ elites are determined to prop up the corpse of the global warming scam:

Jairam Ramesh is demanding a pliant negotiating team: Only serving government officials on climate talks team - http://www.hindu.com/2010/04/14/stories ... 321500.htm

Meanwhile, some desperate whitewashing:

We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit
http://www.hindu.com/2010/04/15/stories ... 751800.htm

I would vote that this tread be moved to the strategic issues forum, since this whole issue is basically about an attempt by western elite families to create global governance structures and stifle economic growth.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 15 Apr 2010 13:44

It looks like the Mayans were spot on about 2012,being disaster year,with the increased solar activity affecting gobal climate.Each day with increasing intensity one reads of new climatic and natural disasters.Within the last few months alone alone we've had the Haiti earthquake,earthquake in China,earthquake in Indonesia,floods/landslides in Brazil,cyclone in Bihar,and now the Icelandic volcanic eruption which is sending ash as far away as London and has disrupted flights in the country!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/trave ... ecast.html

Volcanic ash cloud 'spreading towards London': forecast
The cloud of ash caused by the eruption of a volcano in Iceland is forecast to spread south towards London today, adding to disruption of flights across the country.

EXcerpt:

Hundreds of flights have already been cancelled at airports in Scotland and northern England, and air traffic controllers in Brussels in charge of strategic management of flights across Europe have issued warnings to pilots that many flights into Britain can expect to be diverted to other countries or cancelled.

Flights in Norway and other parts of northern Europe have also been disrupted.

Volcanic ash is extremely dangerous in airspace, as it causes engines to malfunction, restricts vision and even cause severe damage to the metal 'skin' of the aircraft.

Because of the threat to aviation, a global early warning system, known as the International Airways Volcano Watch, has been established. Iceland is considered as particularly vulnerable to volcanic disruption.

Authorities on Tuesday evacuated 800 residents from around the Eyjafjallajokull glacier as water gushed down the mountainside and rivers rose by up to 10 feet (3 meters).

The Eyjafjallajökull volcano erupted for the first time in 200 years on March 20, in a dramatic display that sent fountains of lava spewing into the air.

The first eruption did not trigger any major flooding, as was initially feared, because the active vents were in a mainly ice-free part of the volcano.

But Tuesday's eruption came from a different vent beneath a 650-ft (200m) thick block of ice, unleashing a torrent of glacial meltwater.

News flash:Another Alaskan volcano has erupted,what gives?

Alaska volcano Mount Redoubt erupts 3 times
Alaska's Mount Redoubt volcano has begun erupting over night, sending smoke billowing some 50,000 feet above sea level.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... times.html

Santosh Pandey · Post by **Santosh Pandey** » 11 May 2010 17:25

Some facts :-
1. Developed countries depend largely on petroleum for their energy needs.
2. Increased cost of energy (read petrol, diesel, natural gas) will have a negative effect on their stability of their economies and cost of living. Because none of the developed economies (that consume highest amount of petroleum) are self relient as far as energy needs are concerned.
3. Last decade has seen an unexpected increase in energy cost due to increase in demand of petroleum from developing countries.
4. We have already seen petroleum going at > 85 dollars a barrel.
Having said that, development of the economies will put an upward pressure on energy costs. High growth of developing countries will keep pushing energy costs. The problem lies here. And the solution is to decrease the demand of petroleum. This can be done either by changing the source of energy or by decreasing the demand from developing countries. Wicked though, but it seems that developed countries are playing the card of global warming just to keep their supplies uninterrupted (and cheap).
It is more surprising that, inspite of being technologically advanced, the developed countries are not taking initiative in curbing domestic carbon emission (i.e. US). On the other hand, they are willing to offer technical help to developing countries to reduce their carbon emission levels.
The dedication with which developed countries are lobbying, arm-twisting and pressurizing developing economies, if the same level of dedication they show in curbing domestic carbon emission, situation would have been healthier.
Point 1 to 4 are facts. Further is my observation, no biasness intended. Will welcome any comments as this is my first post on BR..