Copenhagen Global Warming Conference: Why Didn't They Use Video Conferencing?
Posted: Monday, December 07, 2009
by Mogama
http://www.mogama.info
The credibility of the climate-change gods is on the line once again. Changing their verbiage from global warming to climate change cannot conceal whatever they are hiding. Following on the heels of email gate, which reveals that warm-earth activist scientists silenced certain voices that differed from theirs, it may not be an exaggeration to brand this Copenhagen Climate Change Conference as the Who's Who of Global Warming Hypocrites.
It seems like hypocrisy (a mismatch of belief and behavior) continues to be a hallmark of leading global warming activists, and this Mother of the Global Warming Congregation is the biggest "Do as we say, not as we do" sermon yet.
To their credit the organizers did pick the right venue. Denmark leads the world in energy-generating wind mills, powering 19% of its electricity from wind turbines. So the Danish deserve to be the poster country for clean, green energy.
Besides choosing the right host, the climate gods should have taken two other actions if they wanted the world to take them more seriously.
First, the conference organizers should have included some Old Order Amish people as spokespersons for their cause. The world knows the Amish people as the true champions of simplified living. They've been living green for centuries. Many of them do not drive or use power-line electricity. There's your credible voice for keeping the environment pristine. Had Al Gore and the climate priesthood consulted with Amish bishops, they would have known not to fly on get planes to Copenhagen, and not to ride in gasoline or diesel vehicles during twelve days of discussions.
Searchwarp's own Joel Kontinen writes in a recent article, "The United Nations estimates that the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference will generate some 40,584 metric tons of carbon dioxide…"
The second thing conference planners should have done to win our respect was use technology to conduct the meeting via video conferencing. That would have generated zero emissions. It's hard to believe that they did not seriously consider video conferencing during two full years of planning the conference.
Perhaps they are not as sincere about global warming as they sound. Perhaps they wanted to meet for the sake of socializing among themselves as the VIPs of the world. Maybe they have other hidden agendas that they intend to set in stone behind closed doors, policies that may become somewhat binding on the citizens of their respective countries, which may cave in to the political pressure. Could it be that what we are looking at in Copenhagen is the beginning or continuation of some kind of takeover of something very precious to certain nations and peoples of the world? Is global warming just a front for a scheme of the most sinister genre?
Why shouldn't we pose such cynical questions, since the hot-earth evangelists don't mind leaving behind gigantic kilos of carbon footprints every time they meet anywhere in the world?
While I don't think there is any sinister scheme occurring in Copenhagen I do wonder why they are not using,as an example, video conferencing as you suggest. I wonder why more of the activists are not more sensitive to the problem they talk so much about--jets, living in huge homes, etc. I also wonder, when some will look at the whole matter as simply what it is and not make it political, cultural, almost a religious type holier than thou attitude of them against any type of dissension. I understand that important issues bring out passion in people but regarding this topic, it seems some have more than a passion about the topic --some type of personal agenda comes into play for many. Anyway, just my two cents Mogama, a nice topic to write about and one that makes us ponder the subject.Please log in to respond to this comment.Thanks, Steve, for your insight. You are so right: the "holier than thou" thing. The global warming agenda now has an air of religious fervor to it. Doesn't it? ~mogama~Please log in to respond to this comment.
That's a very good question. I wonder if this conference, as with all political gatherings (this is more political than scientific), is nothing more than a photo-op. Well done.Please log in to respond to this comment.I appreciate your thoughts, Michael. One would think there were more substance to their meeting than "a photo-op", but you may be right. ~mogama~Please log in to respond to this comment.
Nice article, Mogama. If all climate change advocates were like the Amish or used windmills like the Danes, there would be no need for any climate conferences.Please log in to respond to this comment.Exactly right. Joel, did you notice you contributed to my article? Thanks. ~mogama~Please log in to respond to this comment.Yes, I noticed. I like your fresh approah. You discuss aspects that I didn't.Thanks, Joel.Please log in to respond to this comment.
Well written piece exploring a much needed topic. thanks for posting this piece - you and Joel are keeping SWers on their toes with good reading and ideas on "climate change" MarijoPlease log in to respond to this comment.You are such an encourager, Marijo. I appreciate you a lot. Thanks much. ~mogama~Please log in to respond to this comment.
Valid points indeed, Mogama. It would be great if a rep from the conference would give you an answer!Please log in to respond to this comment.Thanks, Ken, for your comment. If I could find Mr. Al Gore's personal email address I'd shoot him an email with the question, "Why didn't you use video conferencing for the climate conference?" Not sure I'd get a reply, though. ~mogama~Please log in to respond to this comment.
Yes, I was ranting about exactly the same thing this morning. Truth is, the rules they will be passing apply to us not them. No doubt they will encourage us to grass on the elderly neighbour who is using one lamp too many, while they clog up the airports with private jets and the roads with the gas guzzling limos. Damn cheek!Please log in to respond to this comment.I appreciate your comment, Marjorie. You seem pretty steamed about the global warmists' hypocrisy. I don't blame you. ~mogama~Please log in to respond to this comment.
At our house we are stocking up on traditional light bulbs. A few of the new bulbs, "Al Gore bulbs" as we call them, are in our lamps; like many people now in Copenhagen for this wasteful conference, the new bulbs do not shed much light.Please log in to respond to this comment.Thanks, Jean, for commenting. "Al Gore bulbs"...that's a new one for me. I like your brilliant twist that these earth-saving bulbs shed as little light as the global warmists who push them. Hopefully the green bulbs are reducing my electric bill, but I don't have proof of that. ~mogama~Please log in to respond to this comment.
Wow!!! I thought this was a great article! As always you have written eloquently on an important subject. This time, for what may be a first, I agree with you whole heartedly. It is great to have a place where we can share such a diversity of opinions and greater still when we can find a common ground not just as writers but as people. thanks for the article I'm a big fan of yours even through the disagreements.Please log in to respond to this comment.Thanks, Steven. I appreciate your comment. ~mogama~Please log in to respond to this comment.
Thanks for a great article, Mogama. I too am so angry about the whole global warming thing I could just spit. I think Al Gore is the biggest hypocrite of all. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.Linda DPlease log in to respond to this comment.Well, Linda, I understand your anger, but I think spiting could add to your carbon footprint, which results in more greenhouse gas and global warming. May be not. ~mogama~Please log in to respond to this comment.