Wednesday, December 09, 2009

Copenhagen: 1,200 Limos, 5 Hybrids, 140 Private Jets, and CO2 Equal to Alexandria VA (41,000 tons)

TELEGRAPH.UK -- On a normal day, Majken Jorgensen, the managing director of Copenhagen's biggest limousine company, says her firm has twelve vehicles on the road. During the "summit to save the world," she will have 200.  "We thought they were not going to have many cars, due to it being a climate convention," she says. "But it seems that somebody last week looked at the weather report."

Ms. Jorgensen reckons that between her and her rivals the total number of limos in Copenhagen next week has already broken the 1,200 barrier. The French alone rang up on Thursday and ordered another 42. "We haven't got enough limos in the country to fulfil the demand," she says. "We're having to drive them in hundreds of miles from Germany and Sweden." And the total number of electric cars or hybrids among that number? "Five," says Ms. Jorgensen.

The airport says it is expecting up to 140 extra private jets during the peak period alone, so far over its capacity that the planes will have to fly off to regional airports – or to Sweden – to park, returning to Copenhagen to pick up their VIP passengers.
According to the organisers, the eleven-day conference, including the participants' travel, will create a total of 41,000 tons of "carbon dioxide equivalent," equal to the amount produced over the same period by a city the size of Middlesbrough (MP: Or Alexandria, VA or Pasadena, CA).

HT: Dennis Gartman


At 12/09/2009 9:07 AM, Anonymous John said...

This illustrates the fact that most global warming nuts want to tell OTHER people what to do.

At 12/09/2009 9:14 AM, Blogger Paul said...

Think Gore rolled in on his yacht?

At 12/09/2009 9:29 AM, Blogger juandos said...

Well its apparent that the BS meter is being pegged by the machinations of these hypocrites...

Note the following from Watts Up With That?

Citizens buying advertising against climate change politics

At 12/09/2009 9:31 AM, Blogger PeakTrader said...

There may be at least two major problems with climate models:

1. Economists cannot create a sound general equilibrium model of a large economy, in part, because of the interactions and interrelationships of hundreds of major dynamic forces (in hundreds of dimensions, i.e. vectors in n-space). Yet, larger and more complex sound models can be created by climatologists?

2. The data are limited, e.g. going back to 1850. Given the cycles within cycles of climate change, several hundred thousand years of data are needed (at a minimum). It's similar to an economist using one day of data, e.g. hourly or minute data, to describe a macroeconomy.

At 12/09/2009 9:33 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

These people are quacks and charlatans parading around as pseudo-scientists.

I wonder if they can turn lead into gold as well - that must be next year's convention.

At 12/09/2009 9:39 AM, Anonymous Lyle said...

I propose a challenge to the warming folks, have an energy audit of your house perform the suggested actions to get as close to leed platinum standards, and publish the results. This suggests a piece of put your money where your mouth is. Apparently it was decided that video conferencing would not work for the conference, due to lower levels of interacting.

At 12/09/2009 9:54 AM, Blogger juandos said...

Consider how the data was manipulated and massaged...

Note the following from the American Thinker: Revenge of the Computer Nerds

It is fascinating to watch the mainstream media in America duck (and/or make excuses for) the greatest scam in modern history: the "science" behind man made global warming. Even more entertaining, and far more enlightening, is to follow the analyses by the experts in computer programming of the recently disclosed methods used by the Climate Research Unit (CRU) from the University of East Anglia....

At 12/09/2009 10:20 AM, Anonymous gettingrational said...

Once again, juandos has complemented our esteemed host's article with a very nice link: Revenge of the Nerds.

The comments section of the Revenge of the Nerds article are very interesting, expecially rtimm's observations on 1960s and 1970s temps being warmer because of proximity to air condtioning equipment!

At 12/09/2009 11:17 AM, Blogger juandos said...

Hey gettingrational, what did you think of the AvgDude's comment?

I thought it was hilarious!

GlobalWarmingScam() {
Do While(Suckers > 0);

if PeerObjects > 0
then Call PeerDenier;
if BetterAlternativeTheories > 0
then Call AGWSettledScience;
if ProofOfFraudFound
then Call DoubleDownOnStupid;


At 12/09/2009 12:42 PM, Blogger QT said...

What no jokes about the market for forged conference passes to qualify for free "carbon dating"...?


Nice thought however, unfortunately, there are a lot of problems with LEED ie. energy inefficiency. A recent seminar focused on many problems with LEED.

Some technologies like white single ply roofing membranes which qualify for LEED cannot be cleaned..after 2 years they don't really meet the LEED standard and need to be replaced 7 times as often as a traditional built-up other words, they don't have a lower energy or environmental footprint.

At 12/09/2009 1:53 PM, Anonymous Lyle said...

Qt while not perfect the Leed Standards are a start. If there is a better standard fine, the point is to have the promoters put their money where their mouth is. Start with have the put the low flow toilet in, do they have zero irrigation landscaping, how good is the HVAC system, do they have any solar system.
The white roof dark roof partly I contend depends upon if your heating or cooling load is greater. Light roofs if cooling dark if heating.
In any case I favor metal roofs, they last 50 to 100 years and are totally recyclable. (Metal is great that way)

At 12/09/2009 2:08 PM, Blogger OA said...

I saw a clip of one of the speakers saying they're not drinking bottled water, they're drinking tap water.

Before that I thought they were all hypocrites, but after that sacrifice, I'm oddly converted.

At 12/09/2009 4:38 PM, Blogger QT said...


A standard is a start even if it's not perfect?

What if it's just plain bad or at best gimmickry which does not address the fundamental problems? What if a standard favours powerful interest groups whose lobbyists have input into creating the standard?

Doesn't the degree of political intrigue surrounding "climate change" give you a moment's pause?

At 12/09/2009 6:29 PM, Anonymous Lyle said...

The leed standard does have some good things, like giving points for dual flush toilets low irrigation landscaping, and energy efficency. Note that the economy has helped homes meet the standard as points for smaller than average exist. I would be happy to see the more detailed breakout, but of course it would not get the media coverage. Actually given the points for smaller than average Al Gore might well have to move!

At 12/09/2009 10:42 PM, Blogger QT said...


One also has to consider materiality. LEED represents an infinitetessmally small # of buildings..the truly appauling thing is that LEED has promoted technologies that are expensive and inefficient pure gimmickry like green roofs and bamboo flooring when all you have to do is create an energy efficient structure which is straight applied engineering...this isn't rocket science; it can be done cheaply and whistles.

Many of the ideas of energy efficiency have been around since the 1950s & 1960s...very little of this stuff is new. My husband was doing this stuff 30 years ago on Baffin Island.

LEED is another example of green marketing...sizzle but pretty skimpy on the steak. Like you say, if it isn't sexy, it doesn't get press coverage.

At 12/09/2009 11:04 PM, Anonymous Lyle said...

The point I make is for the folks who push the warming to put their money where there mouth is and show that they care with their money, if you don't like the leed standard, then suggest another. It attempts to put them in a position to answer John in the first post, i.e. I do care I spent my money to fix my home. So its the toilets, the irrigation the hvac system, the building envelope, etc. I did check and the Leed for existing homes does not exist so it will not work. Evidently Leed is a great international standards boondoggle.

At 12/10/2009 10:51 AM, Anonymous Lyle said...

Just to set the record straight Gore did get his house to the Leed Gold level this year, so he did put some of his money where his mouth is.

At 12/10/2009 7:40 PM, Blogger QT said...


Al Gore has a great deal of money for tassels, trim and more specifically green window dressing. I believe that you & I could probably agree that his actions would seem to be largely irrelevant to the science of green house gas theory and climatology.

WRT LEED, I can understand that you wish the consensus to put their money where their mouth is and agree to some standard. That seems a reasonable proposition however, it would seem that the Brussels set and the Club of Rome are only too willing to invent arbitrary standards which will create a dead weight on growth for primarily the U.S.

The U.S. will get to experience first hand the kind of economic stagnation that Europe has experienced after decades of EU dictums. Economic growth is essential if the U.S. is going to deal with the massive deficits that are currently being produced by this administration. Given that Social Security is predicted to go bankrupct in 10 years, it would seem that insolvency is the more looming catastrophe than climate change which has been hyped out of all proportion to reality.

John Christie, co-recipient of the Nobel Prize with Al Gore, has gone on record to state that there is probably nothing that we can do about global climate change and that emission reductions will be completely ineffective but massively expensive. If the solution will not solve the problem and cost massive amounts of money to not solve, why are we doing this?

At 12/14/2009 5:28 PM, Anonymous Eric H said...

Algore's mansion is still consuming more than twice the electricity per square foot as my 1979 house with non-thermal break windows and 10-SEER heat pump. After he went "LEED", his coal burning increased, but his natural gas use went down. I've never seen the cost anywhere.

It's still lipstick on an energy hog.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home