Question: Who pays these billboards? Big Oil is accused of funding the skeptics. But we do not have money for such expensive campaigns? THINK about it.

However one billboard is missing: A picture of hungry child with the slogan: “2050 - We could have stopped eco-Taliban, but we didn’t”

Well, ask the Greenpeace who funded the campaign. I doubt it’s Al Gore. I hear he’s been a victim of Climategate. And I can tell you of personal experience, outdoor billboards & retouching are not as expensive as you imply. 

The location for these ads is not good anyway. 88% of the world population supports acting against climate change. The average world citizen passing through the airport probably doesn’t need any further emotional impact. But world leaders do & they should see these ads when looking in the mirror.

You repeated over and over again that skeptics (including you) don’t say global warming is not happening, you simply don’t agree it’s man made. Fine, nobody asks you to believe otherwise.

But why are you against people doing their best to fight its effects? Sometimes you sound like you prefer poverty & calamities to the natural human instinct of fighting to preserve his/her existence.

“88% of the world population supports acting against climate change.” How did anyone come up with such an absurd figure?  How about some real numbers from a real country, Australia: “While sales of the smallest cars on the market fell in November, four-wheel-drives and utes enjoyed a sales bonanza. The Toyota HiLux utility was the best selling vehicle in the country, outselling the Holden Commodore, while sales of 4WD-style SUVs were up a staggering 44 per cent. Toyota’s smallest car, the Yaris, saw sales slump by 20 per cent, while the company’s thirstiest vehicle, the LandCruiser, recorded a 35 per cent jump.” Those are real facts about real people in a real economy: http://bit.ly/7MOpNQ

Adela, let me reply with a question: “Why do you support people, who advocate CO2 cuts? It has nothing to do with nature protection. It has no impact on temperatures. It has nothing to do with meaningful environmentalism.”

Why cut CO2 emissions???
CO2 cuts will have lesser impact on temperatures than singing Italian opera.

In the last 10 years CO2 emissions rose by 30% globally, but temperatures are going down. As Trenberth wrote in his CRU e-mail, the IPCC models cannot explain it and it is a travesty they cannot… CO2 having no impact on temperatures.

Let us improve our environment instead! I for example hate it, when the magistrate cuts an alley of beautiful trees due to a reconstruction of a road. THIS is a real problem. CO2 is not.

I think these posters are really powerful. The film the Age of Stupid is all based on this premise and it has done extremely well. Let’s hope the posters follow suit

@Vitezslav, I support CO2 cuts as much as I support other issues I think of highest importance: scarcity of water, need for alternative energies (although still very expensive here), fair trade.

But why CO2, too? Because every time I go to Bucharest, I can’t breath outside without having the reflex to puke at the same time. Because when I go outside in my own city at noon, I am dizzy and feel like I’m on the verge of fainting every minute as I inhale more polluted air than oxygen. Because every time I go to the mountains where there are more trees than cars (unlike in the city) my lungs thank me for the break.

I don’t base my belief on theory, I have lived in the same city in the last 7 years and every new year came with higher temperatures, with more pollution & emissions. I begin to forget the smell of grass in spring (because we seem to no longer have one) or how to build a snowman, because we no longer have any snow.

Sincerely, I couldn’t care less if co2 & temperatures were related, the fact is they both affect my daily life in a bad way.

@Eamonn -

The % is from a multi-country opinion poll run between September and November 2009 by the Program on International Public Opinion Attitudes (PIPA). I thought I linked that in the post, my mistake.

Who on Earth cares about climate change?

@Lara - I still think most people are more aware than world leaders. But hope is the last to die.

Adela, you surprise me. You really think, that polluted stinky stale air and smog in Bucharest is CO2? CO2 is odourles colourless gas. You cannot smell it.

If you want to get rid of local polution around highways and crossroads in big cities, I vote YES. But you don’t need global carbon tax for this.

If you cannot ski or build snowmen due to warmer climate, I am sorry. But climate always changes. We cannot help it. CO2 cuts will do nothing about it.

Yes, the gasoline burned in huge quantities by the millions of cars has nothing to do with co2 or pollution. Nothing to do with CO or nitrogen oxides either.

As far as I know CO2 is also the body’s regulator of the breathing function. It should be normally present in the air at a concentration of 0.03% by volume. Increases above this cause accelerated heart rate and breathing. 10% causes respiratory paralysis and death within a few minutes.

But yeah, my first example may have not been the best because it focuses on other chemical compounds more than CO2.

Imagine the direct and indirect risks a fat human being is put to every day - diabetes, stroke, heart attack, muscular atrophy, nerves, hypertension, liver failure, etc. All because one porks out.

It’s the same with the planet - chemical compounds like CO2 are useful until they become excessive. What happens with all the excess that doesn’t rejoin the nature’s normal circuit? Resources are more and more scarce, plant and animal species disappear, pollution increases.

My point was that everything is interlinked, excess of any kind ruins the balance and eventually, if we don’t do something, the planet will pop sooner rather than later.

Oh, and I forgot something.

I don’t think CO2 should get all the spotlights at COP15 - water scarcity is at least as important.

Eamonn, here is how they come up with such rediculous figures:

http://climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/index.php/think2/post/survey_9_in_10_world_citizens_wants_deal_to_cut_co2_emissions_by_more_than_/

Frauds, the lot of them.

Adela, the only thing they will be discussing at Copenhagen is how to eviscerate what’s left of the US economy.

@ Kremlik
Time has come to review the term sceptics,
who is called sceptics & by whom.
Those who are opposing the climate change are watching with awe the support of people on blogosphere, twitter, news channels, rallies by people or anywhere else. & so, opposers have started acting like sceptics…

@ Adela
Thanks to twitter, seen these powerful pics already. I appreciate that you too felt its power to convey the message & decision of showing it on your blog for those who haven’t yet seen.
For me, what touched more was its linkage of “All apologies” by you
& your qoute: “But hope is the last to die”!
Keep writing Th!nk Bloggers!
Cheers.

Pardon me
& please replace the word ‘sceptics’ with ‘skeptics’ in my last reply…

Cheers.

I agree the terms should change now:

1) former “climate skeptics” should be called “climate realists”. Because our opinions have been confirmed by Climategate as realistic.

2) the alarmists should now be called “climategate deniers”, because they refuse to admit, that their God is dead.

@Mike - the 88% reference was from somewhere else, http://blogs.worldbank.org/climatechange/who-earth-cares-about-climate-change

Benno’s article was however written sooner, so the new PIPA poll confirm his sources.

@Vitezslav - It’s obvious that none of us will change his principles & beliefs because the other one tells so. Instead of endless debates that take nowhere, we should all focus our energies on trying to change our lives for the better.

@Aditya - All apologies is one of my favorite Nirvana songs because its message is, in the end, optimistic. The posters may be a representation of the future, but it’s not the only possible one. We can still change that future.

Yes, and I repeat: Frauds, the lot of them. Showing people alarmist propaganda then preloading them with the “right” choice and then pretending such a poll has any objectivity is just a disgusting fraud.

Meanwhile in reality: Another victory for common sense.

Liberals claim Higgins.

@Mike - The things I wrote in a previous comment are valid for you, too. Instead of endless debates that take us nowhere and don’t change anything, we should rather focus our energies on acting to change our lives for the better.

Of what I see, you’re from Australia. On one hand, your country made a decision by refusing to propose any CO2 cuts. I’m sure the rest of the world got that.

On the other hand, Australia has to deal with bush fires every year. They get worse every year. More and more people die every year. How does throwing words help any of you Australians to fight fires and avoid human losses?

@Adela:

How would inceasing of taxes, economical suicide or persecution of skeptical scientists help Australia to fight fires and avoid human losses???

I don’t get it.

Speculation:

I would say, that if there are more frequent fires (if!), Australia needs more firefighters.

Not less firefighters due to lack of money (due to increased carbon taxes).

I’d appreciate if you didn’t make up bullshit about my own country. There are bushfires every year regardless of climate change. Bushfires are not only normal, they are even a necessary part of our eco-system; some trees require the bushfires to germinate their seeds.

There is no year-on-year increase in severity or death from bushfires.

This year’s Black Saturday bushfire deaths are unique, primarily due to the government’s “stay or go” policy, communication errors and arson (see the Bushfire Commission), in addition to record temperatures and drought.

Drought in Australia is not exceptional, though prolonged drought does exacerbate bushfires. Severe bushfires occur in roughly 20-year cycles.

Denying people access to cheap abundant energy such as coal and oil would literally be a death sentence for billions.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

@Mike I think you got me wrong. I didn’t say bush fires are because of climate change (although I do think that higher temperatures increase the possibility of dried lands to catch fire more often).

I was simply saying that we can use our time better than arguing upon co2 or global warming, because this kind of debate will not make either you or me change our minds/views.

Of course, everybody does whatever he/she wants with his own time, so if you think unconvincing debates with me are worth it, well, I can’t stop you.

hi, where you find those pics? can you send them to me thx!

@xuan
The images are all available on Greenpeace -
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/photosvideos/photos

Obviously Greenpeace is behind the campaign… that even says on the poster. The posters are really great PR I think

@Daniel - I think Greenpeace is going to be one of the ‘image’ winners of COP15. I’ve just read earlier about another campaign they’ve done - creating a ‘storm’ by spraying water and thousands of leaves at arriving delegates.

I usually connect Greenpeace to activists chained to trees, so this is a peaceful, more creative, high(er)-impact campaign I have to admit I prefer to the old ones.

Adela,
don’t mind Vitezslav, the billboards are great. :D

You make experience a place here. I have study a lot about this on early articles published by previous people, but I primary admit that you clear proved your point here! Will exist back to read more such of your greatest selective information!
Banner Prints