Comments for en-gb 30 Tue 07 Jul 2015 00:28:31 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at MangoChutney @Yeah_Whatever #23The representation of "views" here is an indication of how much money is involved in the fossil fuel industry and how much they can afford to pay useful idiots to post.Do you actually have evidence to support this absurd claim?If not, could i suggest you withdraw your claim?/mango Sun 20 Dec 2009 10:23:40 GMT+1 U14260427 This post has been Removed Sun 20 Dec 2009 09:57:53 GMT+1 U14260427 "13. At 3:19pm on 18 Dec 2009, GeeDeeSea wrote:@Sparklet #9... do you really think that sort of nonsense will make one iota of difference to anyone with any sense?"That's the point GeeDeeSea. It ISN'T to make a difference to anyone with any sense.What it's meant to do is make Senators who DON'T have any sense and/or have a lot to lose if Fossil Fuels go the way of the Dodo have something to point to to say "I'm only reflecting the views of the "'merkin peepul".You know, the same types who "cure" a deaf boy on TV and say "It's a mrkle" and they can do the same for you if you send lots of money to them.Also note that there are lots more deniers on this blog than pro. This is because there's a lot more to lose financially in the short term if AGW mitigation is enacted than there is to gain financially by that mitigation.The representation of "views" here is an indication of how much money is involved in the fossil fuel industry and how much they can afford to pay useful idiots to post.Think they don't pay for people to turn up to complain?See here: it easy for those you wind up to get in front of the cameras... Sun 20 Dec 2009 09:56:44 GMT+1 MangoChutney PSWhy do you keep having my posts refered, whenever they mention ClimateGate?/mango Sun 20 Dec 2009 09:49:51 GMT+1 MangoChutney @Yeah_Whatever #20Because, as an IT expert, I think you could have useful insight into the hacked / released emails and code, which i would be delighted if you shared with us Sun 20 Dec 2009 09:49:09 GMT+1 U14260427 Larry, when are you going to give up your fantasy world.If I am Yeah whatever, what does that mean?If I'm not who the hell are you talking to? Sun 20 Dec 2009 09:44:07 GMT+1 U14260427 "Despite ClimateGate? Surely Obama realises Manns own university is investigating Manns conduct over the CliamteGate issue?"Why would he care?What difference two weeks make. Two weeks ago Larry here along with all the other dittos were yelling about how this was all a scam to tax us under a New World Order and that the scientists were doing what the politicians told them to keep their jobs.So if that were true, why would Obama (one of the ones pushing NWO according to the rightwingnuts) change his stance over this?Obviously not even Larry believes the conspiracy theory he so recently held... Sun 20 Dec 2009 09:42:20 GMT+1 jose luis belmar Some days ago, I wrote the following comment in the Examiner: "Without being Nostradamus, COP15 will be a flop, a complete flop, thanks GOD! I have never read and heard so many stupidities in my whole life as the ones I read and heard around Copenhaguen. I insist: Al Gore should be put behind bars. He is the greatest terrorists of all times. People are scared, children are terrified because of the dieing polar bears and African countries are looking for a way to receive money they can use for other things but to reduce pollution. Phil Jones, Mann, Al Gore, Obama, Calderon and the nincompoops Danes, should go to school to learn something about Climatology and not participating in a worldwide conference without knowing what they are going to face there. I wonder i any of then has read one, just one of the 4,558 e-mails hacked by a Russian hacker and distributed via a Russian server way up there in the wildernes of Siberia."VOP15 was a complete fiasco because they were trying to fix the changing of the climate, something that has ocurred for millions and millions of years, instead of concentrating in how to prevent more pollution, and that is all. Besides, all the conference circled around money and only money. Many countries were demanding more money from the rich countries: money that I am completely sure would be used to increase some politicians bank accounts and nothing else. Next year in Mexico, I predict the same story: climate change conference will be a flop again because the countries are only looking for their economic benefits. Just today I read that Ecuador demands many billions of dollars for not exploiting the oil reserves just found in a national park. That is the moral created by Obama and other stupid leaders who are offering tax payers money to solve the "global warming". Nincompoops! Climate change has ocurred in the Universe for millions of years and no one, not even God, has been able to do anything about it. If something happens, it will certainly happen when everybody has passed away. Obama, Merkel, Sarkozy and others, including my Mexican president, Felipe Calderón, do not know a thing about climatology and they will never understand that the Sun is behind the changes in the climate. By the way, to all of those who believe in Al Gore´s lies: How is the weather where you live? Don't you have blizzards? Are you not under one feet or more of snow?If you have them, blaim the global warming. The world will face a new mini ice age and almost everybody is trying to hide the Sun with one finger. Good luck! Sun 20 Dec 2009 09:27:38 GMT+1 MangoChutney Obama clearly knows about Climategate. Perhaps this is why he has nothing new to addAs an IT expert, perhaps Yeah_whatever could give his opinion on the ClimateGate scandal? Sat 19 Dec 2009 19:57:46 GMT+1 jose luis belmar Sarah Palin warned Obama not to go to the fiascoin Copenhaguen, which looked like the tower of Babel. If Black did not find nothing new in his speech, itwas only because he had nothing new to say. Well. O.K.After saying " "America is going to continue on this course of action no matter what happens in Copenhagen." "America has made our choice. We have charted our course, we have made our commitments, and we will do what we say." showed only that he is Mighty Mouse, Superman, Mickey Mouse and King Kong. America will save the world from disaster. His Nobel Yaser Arafat Prize has turned him into a modern Ivanhoe. Long live Obama and the hoaxers from climate change: Gore, Mann, Hansen, IPCC and of course, Denmark and Sweden. Fri 18 Dec 2009 19:53:27 GMT+1 kennymac825 You display a shocking lack of knowledge about Americans and American politics. And poor, naive Maria Ashot is quite correct. There will be a change at the 2010 US mid-term elections but neither she nor you will like the results. Approval ratings for the Presidents' performance have plummeted. This will result, unfortunately, in the Republicans gaining more seats at the expense of Democrats and Republicans almost to a man, sorry, or woman, don't give a hoot about perceived global warming. This does not bode well for anything coming out of Mexico next December.On the other hand if you are a skeptic as I am, this is a good thing Fri 18 Dec 2009 19:17:09 GMT+1 willcall Enough -- It's time to show them the depths of the world's anger. December 31 should be a worldwide day of rage. The last day of the old year, the old industrial era. Go out with a declaration of resolve that political leadership must address the future for the benefit of people, not corporations, armies, or the undeserved wealthy. For every election and political initiative in the world requiring the compliance of the people, there must be a strong and present concern in the back of the minds of the leadership about what the people think and, more importantly, expect. December 31. Say something. Fri 18 Dec 2009 16:29:17 GMT+1 GeeDeeSea @Sparklet #9 It's nothing to do with some odd individual submitting spurious vids to YouTube from his bedroom - do you really think that sort of nonsense will make one iota of difference to anyone with any sense? Fri 18 Dec 2009 15:19:47 GMT+1 Dempster 7. At 2:21pm on 18 Dec 2009, Martin wrote:'£100 billion might prolong the lives of 5 million heart bypass patients, but what we're talking about here is risking the lives of the 5 billion who would die/starve/fall ill/be displaced as a result of climate change'Fair comment, lets hope no one you know needs one then. Fri 18 Dec 2009 15:04:00 GMT+1 writeon Are more words what this conference needs, even if they are from the lips of Obama? Surely one needs concrete proposals with dates, numbers, and specific targets? Obama is very, very, vague on all this crucial areas.Also, he simply lacks determination. Here is a president who apparently won a "landslide" victory, mobilized a whole generation of activists, and was starting a new chapter in American history, a new beginning; an era of hope and change, of substantive domestic reform, and international co-operation. What happened to all that? What has he actually done with all the power the American people gave him? Did he ask for their help to foce Congress to pass his healthcare proposals? Did he speak to a mulitude in Washington and explain what his policy was and why his modest reforms should be passed? Did he ask the multitude to raise their voices so the vested interests that control Congress could hear what the American people thought? No he didn't. He caved and surrendered the initiative to others who were ready to fight for what they believed in.And this is Obama's style. He bends when confronted by opposition and he refuses to fight or engage with his supporters, simply because it's too hard. Why doesn't he use his rhetorical gifts to explain to the American people what climate change will mean for them in the future? He could make a powerful case, yet he refuses to do it, prefering to give up. A president that won't use his powerbase to put pressure on Congress, which is the bastion of vested interests, simply doesn't stand a chance of achieving anything at all of any real worth. Why is Obama so passive? Because he isn't interested in real reforms, despite the massive challenges that face the United States. He isn't a president bent on change. He is a president for continuity and the powerful status quo. Fri 18 Dec 2009 15:03:36 GMT+1 minuend "After listening to Mr Kerry's speech a year ago, I suggested that the incoming president's priority might be to listen to other countries before deciding what global leadership looked like. The impasse we are seeing here is perhaps because he, and the leaders of some other prosperous important nations, have not done so."O'Bummer Mr Black is upset! Fri 18 Dec 2009 14:44:12 GMT+1 Sparklet 7. At 2:21pm on 18 Dec 2009, Martin wrote:£100 billion might prolong the lives of 5 million heart bypass patients, but what we're talking about here is risking the lives of the 5 billion who would die/starve/fall ill/be displaced as a result of climate change.----------------------------------------------------------------------It's nothing to do with 'risking the lives of 5 billion' - do you really think that what politicians agree here will make one iota of difference to climate?SEE THE NATURAL CYCLES Fri 18 Dec 2009 14:38:23 GMT+1 GeeDeeSea After two weeks they seem to have agreed the first line in the agreement, "A cap of 2C will be set." I think they might have achieved that by e-mail.Obama says, "America has made our choice. We have charted our course, we have made our commitments, and we will do what we say."USA signed the Kyoto Protocol on 12th November 1998. Is Obama promising to do what they agreed to in the Kyoto protocol? Fri 18 Dec 2009 14:28:50 GMT+1 Martin £100 billion might prolong the lives of 5 million heart bypass patients, but what we're talking about here is risking the lives of the 5 billion who would die/starve/fall ill/be displaced as a result of climate change. Fri 18 Dec 2009 14:21:55 GMT+1 Maria Ashot I agree with your assessment, Mr Black.The antics of some of our interlocutors of the past weeks (and indeed years) remind us of how much mischief-making remains, especially in America & some of the other most advanced countries.The paragraph you cite here, from President Obama's speech, appears virtually word for word in the speech of President Dmitry Medvedev -- in the original Russian (which of course I am fluent in and listened to on the webcast).Were they written by the same person? One could almost say that. They were written by the same committee: and it is not a committee that is being completely forthcoming. It is the "drag-our-heels-some-more-and-hope-the-nightmare-ends" committee.Nevertheless, a bigger force is in play, here in Copenhagen, and henceforth. The pressure is on, at a much higher level than ever before. They have to be held to their words in the strictest construction possible.I would suggest that the EU, indeed, and all of us committed to this cause, hold the key: if we hold these nations & these leaders to account over These Precise Words, if it becomes, indeed, Topic One, and not something somewhere on a par with the sports contests or the "human interest" story: if at every press conference every reporter asks first about a nation's environmental progress based upon these pledges -- instead of some other warmed-over question about matters ultimately of lesser consequence -- then the pressure remains in place. The information machinery has to be just revving up, and not about to shift down into a lower gear, or even "Neutral." I suspect the EU, certainly the UK, and even you at the BBC, will set the tone in that department, in the critical first years of this new Consensus Effort that is to come. Listening to Chavez speak (because of course I learned Spanish after I had mastered Russian and before I even knew that English would become my other mother tongue), I was struck by the very obvious -- and entirely preventable -- nature of the blunder that had been allowed to take place, in Copenhagen.This was clearly a mistake of the handlers & sherpas of the various leaders, not necessarily of the organisers. Maybe this can be corrected in Mexico.So many of these delegations -- certainly from South America, but also from Africa, Russia, India, and, really ultimately everywhere -- mark their most important gatherings with a big communal feast, a schmooze-fest, an asado.Copenhagen would have benefitted from a large shared Food Event just for all the leaders -- alone. A time for them to mingle, unrestricted, without aides or translators -- with minimal outside influences -- and just be the muchachos (and muchachas) they are, at the core of it.You wrote earlier about the influence of the various sexes, and ingrained habits of expressing one's identity as a man or woman, on attitudes to the climate, but in a broader sense to action & accountability per se.The disgruntled delegates feel left out. It is as simple as that. It may be childish, petty, absurd. But there is never any harm done from acknowledging the shared humanity of the various parties being convened at these COP meetings. In Mexico, as is the custom at all the G-gatherings, there has to be a mechanism to just let them all mingle, fearlessly, relying on their own limited language skills and gestures, and preferably at the outset of the proceedings, not at the conclusion. They have to be allowed to get their guard down. Chavez implied that Venezuela would not be signing. There may be others. Then again, he is an oilman, and his nation an important oil-producer, so maybe that is actually the hidden agenda.I have no difficulty questioning the sincerity of Chavez or accusing him of posturing. His discussion of capitalism vs. socialism, complete with quotes from Castro, was irrelevant -- and in striking contrast, for example, to the statement from the Ethiopian PM, on topic, and substantive. I hope those here who are working to undermine Agreement realise that Hugo Chavez is their spokesman. And that says a lot about the quality of the logic involved, and the "virtues" being championed. At the same time, obviously, getting a consensus from China & the USA, after decades of acrimony & stalling, is infinitely more important than pleasing Hugo Chavez. Or members of his posse.Still, because no one is ever leader indefinitely, it would be best to provide mechanisms for those who are not ready to endorse any Copenhagen Agreement with their signatures, to be able to opt in later, after consultations with their constituencies -- or at least to remain attached via their presence on the KP documents. Which means, essentially, that these documents must be yoked together in some unambiguous way, and the promise of legally binding accord under international law enshrined into language, even if postponed by some months (but no by a matter of years).There will be plenty of work to do in the months to come -- but only if it emerges that indeed a point of no return has been passed, in terms of political Consensus to Act to Mitigate the damage done to the climate and environment of our planet by mismanaged, inefficient or unsound human activity, as an Overriding Number One priority for the entire world, binding upon all communities (even if not every member of every community wishes to participate in these efforts, or recognises the need for better & indeed best practices to be ramped up quickly).The upcoming US elections will change the political scene there as well, and I would venture to say the Sierra Club view will gain in momentum. That would in and of itself be a breakthrough and strengthen the prospects for what has been achieved in Copenhagen to actually flourish and accelerate in impact.It's been a very good start, actually, considering all the factors. I sincerely do thank the Parties for their genuine efforts on behalf of a better way of being. Fri 18 Dec 2009 14:00:17 GMT+1 selfevidenttruths Obama is constrained by what he knows is acceptable to congress, the senate and the American people. If he can get some major concessions from China, then maybe there will be some more proposals, otherwise I can't see anything changing. He has been in power less than a year, maybe things will be different in a year or two. Fri 18 Dec 2009 13:17:34 GMT+1 Sparklet But we already know why Obama and his supporters "have renewed our leadership within international climate negotiations".OBAMA INVOLVEMENTWhat they wanted all along -A TRIUMPH FOR THE KLEPTOCRATS AND THE CORPARATOCRACYThis was always about politics, power and money, never about the actual science of climate. Their actions speak far louder than their words!!! Fri 18 Dec 2009 13:16:07 GMT+1 jr4412 "... that Mr Obama has simply "laid down where the American position lies and challenged everyone else to move there"."phew, for a second I thought we'd have to change our ways. Fri 18 Dec 2009 13:07:56 GMT+1 Dempster Nothing new in Obama’s speech: Mr Obama has got his health care to fund, what comes first American lives, or this somewhat theoretical climate change. The average cost of heart by pass surgery in the UK is around £20,000. £100 billion = 5,000,000 (5 million lives)I know it's a simplistic example, but it's still a high price to ask people to pay. And if I were Mr Obama, I’d think very carefully before asking it and I suspect that’s exactly what he’s doing, and rightly so. Fri 18 Dec 2009 13:06:57 GMT+1 MangoChutney "America is going to continue on this course of action no matter what happens in Copenhagen." "America has made our choice. We have charted our course, we have made our commitments, and we will do what we say."Despite ClimateGate? Surely Obama realises Manns own university is investigating Manns conduct over the CliamteGate issue? Fri 18 Dec 2009 12:57:50 GMT+1