ENVIRONMENT  
comments_imageCOMMENTS: 61

Copenhagen Talks End With Agreement, But No Binding Deal: So, How Screwed Are We?

'The governments which moved so swiftly to save the banks have bickered and filibustered while the biosphere burns.'
December 19, 2009  |  
 
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Environment headlines via email.

 
 
Advertisement
 

Last night a tentative agreement was reached between major parties at the COP15 climate change talks in Copenhagen, but will need to be approved by the 193 nations at the gathering. Initial word is that the "Copenhagen Accord" falls short of the already low expectations set for the talks. The full text can be read here.

The New York Times reported:

Leaders here concluded a climate change deal on Friday that the Obama administration called "meaningful" but that falls short of even the modest expectations for the summit meeting ... the agreement appeared to leave many of the participants unhappy.

Even an Obama administration official conceded, "It is not sufficient to combat the threat of climate change, but it's an important first step."

Environmental writer and activist Bill McKibben of 350.org voiced his disapproval. Writing for Grist, McKibben summarized what Obama accomplished:

He blew up the United Nations. The idea that there's a world community that means something has disappeared tonight. The clear point is, you poor nations can spout off all you want on questions like human rights or the role of women or fighting polio or handling refugees. But when you get too close to the center of things that count--the fossil fuel that's at the center of our economy--you can forget about it. We're not interested. You're a bother, and when you sink beneath the waves we don't want to hear much about it. The dearest hope of the American right for fifty years was essentially realized because in the end coal is at the center of America's economy. We already did this with war and peace, and now we've done it with global warming. What exactly is the point of the U.N. now?

He formed a league of super-polluters, and would-be super-polluters. China, the U.S., and India don't want anyone controlling their use of coal in any meaningful way. It is a coalition of foxes who will together govern the henhouse. It is no accident that the targets are weak to nonexistent. We don't want to get too far ahead of ourselves with targets, he said. Indeed. And now imagine what this agreement will look like with the next Republican president.

He demonstrated the kind of firmness and resolve that Americans like to see. It will play well politically at home and that will be the worst part of the deal. Having spurned Europe and the poor countries of the world, he will reap domestic political benefit. George Bush couldn't have done this--the reaction would have been too great. Obama has taken the mandate that progressives worked their hearts out to give him, and used it to gut the ideas that progressives have held most dear. The ice caps won't be the only things we lose with this deal.

McKibben's sentiment was echoed by Britain's leading climate writer, George Monbiot, who wrote:

Even before this new farce began it was starting to look as if it might be too late to prevent two or more degrees of global warming. The nation states, pursuing their own interests, have each been passing the parcel of responsibility since they decided to take action in 1992.

We have now lost 17 precious years; possibly the only years in which climate breakdown could have been prevented. This has not happened by accident: it is the result of a systematic campaign of sabotage by certain states, which has been driven and promoted by the energy industries. This idiocy has been aided and abetted by the nations characterized, until now, as the good guys: those which have made firm commitments, only to invalidate them with loopholes, false accounting and outsourcing. In all cases immediate self-interest has trumped the long-term welfare of humankind. Corporate profits and political expediency have proved to be more urgent concerns than either the natural world or human civilization. Our political systems are incapable of discharging the main function of government: to protect us from each other.

Goodbye Africa, goodbye south Asia; goodbye glaciers and sea ice, coral reefs and rainforest; it was nice knowing you, not that we really cared. The governments which moved so swiftly to save the banks have bickered and filibustered while the biosphere burns.

The next meeting of parties is scheduled for November 2010 in Mexico City, but it's unclear if a binding agreement will be put in place then. Friday's agreement set a goal of 2015.


submit to reddit
Email
Print
Share
Post on reddit
Post on stumbleupon
Post on facebook
Post on digg
Post on twitter
Post on delicious
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest Environment headlines via email
See more stories tagged with: global warming, climate change, copenhagen, cop15
 
Alternet Comments:

Comments are closed-

Get real.
Posted by: jackkane on Dec 19, 2009 12:16 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's ridiculous to expect governments to actually try to curb global warming. Any country that tries to use green energy will only be doing so because it expects to eventually run out of oil.

So, paradoxically, what we should hope for is that the global warming deniers are right. Because, if global warming is really as serious a problem as (most) scientist say, then we're screwed, and we should expect to see Armageddon in some form (tsunamis& submerged cities, or nuclear war...) within the next 50 years.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Get real. Posted by: Sons

Comments are closed-

Deal Reached in Copenhagen ... And it Looks Like Crap ~ Tara Lohan
Posted by: mmckinl on Dec 19, 2009 12:16 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And it Looks Like Crap ~ Tara Lohan

Matthew McDermott reporting from Copenhagen for Treehugger summed up the immediate reaction thus far: Incrementalists will no doubt say that this is a first step, but I'm more inclined to agree with the quick comments of [Naomi] Klein, made immediately after the speech: This is actually five steps in the wrong direction. We have gone from having a legally binding treaty in the form of the Kyoto Protocol, albeit one which the US didn't sign on to -- but the US has never played well with pesky things like international law -- to, well, a non-legally binding, semi-aspirational, weak, shove off.

Friends of the Earth didn't mince any words in their response: "Copenhagen has been an abject failure. Justice has not been done. By delaying action, rich countries have condemned millions of the world's poorest people to hunger, suffering and loss of life as climate change accelerates. The blame for this disastrous outcome is squarely on the developed nations.

~~~

Of course Obama declared COP15 a success, said there was a deal and jetted out of Copenhagen before a deal was even reached ...

Tired of getting lied to by your party ? register Green Party

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

S
Posted by: Constitution on Dec 19, 2009 1:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I guess in 100 million years when the next creatures make it this far they won't have to worry about poisoning the atmosphere with fossil fuels.
there maybe some cole left but not much.
I hope the best for them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: S - Wrong! Posted by: wagner

Comments are closed-

I knew
Posted by: Perry Logan on Dec 19, 2009 2:57 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I knew we were screwed when Obama flew over there.

The Hall of Republican Memes

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Big vs. Small
Posted by: s.duplantier on Dec 19, 2009 2:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The failure of the world politicians in Copenhagen was foreordained because the problem is the size of the big, bullying polluter nations (and their behind-the-scenes corporate puppet masters). Why do the small nations understand what needs to be done and the big ones do not, or act as if they do not?

This is the question that needs answers.

Years ago, philosopher/economist Leopold Kohr correctly diagnosed the trajectories of failure in the world as the result of nations that are too big.

Kohr wrote:

"[T]here seems to be only one cause behind all forms of social misery: bigness. Oversimplified as this may seem, we shall find the idea more easily acceptable if we consider that bigness, or oversize, is really much more than just a social problem. It appears to be the one and only problem permeating all creation. Whenever something is wrong, something is too big.
...
And if the body of a people becomes diseased with the fever of aggression, brutality, collectivism, or massive idiocy, it is not because it has fallen victim to bad leadership or mental derangement. It is because human beings, so charming as individuals or in small aggregations, have been welded into overconcentrated social units.


Kohr's solution was the breakdown of nations. This is hard to achieve politically, because big nations have big weapons and big armies. Independence and separatist movements are regularly crushed where ever they pop up.


Maybe the end result of the too-bigness that prevented an earth-saving deal in Copenhagen has a built-in corrective measure: the coming ecological catastrophes may be able to do an effective job of breaking up the big nations (though we'll still have giant soul-less corporations to worry about).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Big vs. Small Posted by: Word Mix

Comments are closed-

Negating a Kantian Existential Imperative
Posted by: artie on Dec 19, 2009 3:40 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is the paradox of the developed nations' generation that upon the maxims on which they have pivoted their dealings with 'nature' to secure their own existence they have pivoted the demise of that nature and, thereby, secured the demise of their own existence.
Irrespective of what one thinks of Earth System's science, it should be transparent to any rational creature that those maxims that have characterized the developed nations since at least the second industrial revolution cannot be willed universally without contradiction. ... and no contradiction, not even those those have induced war, has ever been so costly....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Obama fails because of all the lies he's told and will tell
Posted by: Lese Majeste on Dec 19, 2009 4:20 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If Obama and Al Bore would just shut up, think of all that hot gas that wouldn't be let loose into the atmosphere.

So much money left to steal from the people and still a few rights left to trample and so little time.

Turning Tricks, Cashing In on Fear

Many of the landmines in the CRU emails tend to buttress long-standing charges by skeptics that statistical chicanery by Prof Michael Mann and others occluded the highly inconvenient Medieval Warm Period, running from 800 to 1300 AD, with temperatures in excess of the highest we saw in the twentieth century, a historical fact which made nonsense of the thesis that global warming could be attributed to the auto-industrial civilization of the twentieth century. Here’s Keith Briffa, of the CRU, letting his hair down in an email written on September 22, 1999: “I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards 'apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data' but in reality the situation is not quite so simple…I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago."

as of 2008 the CRU included among its financial supporters Shell and BP, also the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate and UK Nirex Ltd, a company in the nuclear waste business.


Instead of leading the way to real reform of our energy use, Obama's "Cap and Trade" Scheme will only make for more nuclear power plants and that silly ass lie about 'clean coal' technology, which doesn't exist.

Wait until some of those nukes get built in the backyards of those cheering Obama's climate strategies on, they'll start howling like a dog scalded by hot water.

Denmark Points Way in Alternative Energy Sources

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Something Very Important Has Been Demonstrated in Copenhagen
Posted by: tony_opmoc on Dec 19, 2009 5:26 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Worlds Politicians are a bunch of Blithering Idiots talking Nonsense who Couldn't Run a Piss-Up in a Brewery.

This is Tower of Babel Stuff.

All thoughts of World Government Have Collapsed Like a Wet Fart.

How the Hell Did These Idiots Get into their positions of supposed Power?

We need to get rid of them and start again.

Yes The World Faces Serious Problems, and we do need to work together to Resolve Them.

But First we Need To Identify What The ACTUAL Problems are.

You Can't Do That By Telling BLATANT LIES

CO2 is NOT a PROBLEM

Our Political Leaders Not Only Are a PROBLEM, but an EMBARRASSMENT. Its These People that actually Start Wars.

Tony

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

We're screwed, but it could have been even worse
Posted by: Hans B on Dec 19, 2009 5:47 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One had to be naive to think that Copenhagen would solve anything. Obama didn't put any political capital into it - none. He alone could have wrested leadership away from the Chinese, whose positions are a guarantee for catastrophe. Apparently it wasn't worth it in his eyes.

I agree with Naomi Klein. No deal is better than the total screw-up any Copenhagen deal would have been. The criminal unfairness of what's happening will now start to seep into developing countries' consciousness. We Europeans will be cured - once and for all - of our illusion that the US will lead. And perhaps even Americans will start to realize that fabricated email scandals and voodoo science won't hold back disaster.

Copenhagen was a slap in all of our faces. Maybe it'll help us wake up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

The climate and me
Posted by: colinsyme on Dec 19, 2009 8:10 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whether there Is climate change, whether its man made, whether Co2 is the cause all these questions are academic. l want my Government to go down the Green route because l want my Grand-kids to be able to drive their cars like l did and not deprived when there is no oil because we pissed off the Saudis and they are rationing it. l want my grand-kids to be warm in winter like l was and not cold because we pissed off the Russians and they have cut off their natural gas supply. l want my Grand-kids to have enough food on the table like l had and not hungry because we bought into the GM crap and have pissed of the Yanks who hold all the GM seed stock.

l want my government to invest all their smart money in alternative power and technologies associated with it because it is the right thing to do, we have plenty wind, strong tides and waves, l don't want nuclear power because the supply of uranium is not secure and if we go down this road we will be in the same boat as oil and gas, others will have us over a barrel so to speak.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Just read or listen to audio on line of James Lovelock
Posted by: Sons on Dec 19, 2009 8:18 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lovelock is the best earth scientist living. His outlook for global warming is the most accurate, as was his conclusions about the ozone hole.

This man knows the earth like no other. So I urge everyone to read his book, "The Vanishing Face of Gaia - Final Warning"; or listen to an audio of his views about what is going to happen. Just Google James Lovelock.

Good luck, humans.

Bill

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

It's double standard time all over again.
Posted by: symcokid on Dec 19, 2009 9:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama is so intent on monitoring the pollution output of China now but since the Industrial Revolution this USofA has been super-saturating the atmosphere with pollutants - even eight years ago Der Fuher Bush wouldn't sign on with KYOTO probably making the reversal an impossibility at this stage, but we'll keep close tabs on everybody else now after 150 years of our taking indecent liberties with Mother Earth!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

I wish I had the money
Posted by: willymack on Dec 19, 2009 11:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That was wasted on the Copenhagen farce.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Down in flames
Posted by: FreeAmerica on Dec 19, 2009 12:16 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The carbonhoaxen conference was a huge disaster. The sustainability people invited 30,000 NGO delegates (environmentalist bigshots), plus thousands of heads of state(with entourages)to a place that seated 15,000.

The enviros ended up locked out for most of the last week. One day they had them standing outside for 7-9 hours only to be turned away. Did I mention that it was record cold and a blizzard hit?

That cold wave, the gore effect on other gatherings, and the hilarious DC protest in a snowstorm proves the one thing that really is caused by global warming.. Delicious, sustainable, clean burning irony.

After too many snowstorms at their events in the northern hemisphere, they finally figured it out, and they are jetting to Mexico next year for the big party. LOL

The hypocrisy of having 50,000 environmentalists jet to Europe to gather for a big waste of time while telling us to cut back stresses the real urgency of the situation. (raspberry)

I am all for a cleaner world and a sustainable path. I loathe the CO2 lies and the carbonhoaxen conference as it's hood ornament.

To me that represents money stolen from real projects like common propulsion on freeways or research into better natural energy sources.

Instead of flying 50,000 environmentalist group executive director assholes to Europe, maybe we could have put a 500 million dollars into solar cell research.

I am sure that they had a nifty and indulgent vacation, but the people that ran it and attended were too inept to find stink on street people. The environmental movement would have been moved forward 10 years if the earth had opened up ad swallowed the whole affair.

BTW, historically periods of very high CO2 are associated with large growth rates in evolution of not only many current plants and animals, but your beloved corals too. Plants thrive on the stuff, critters thrive on plants.
One thing that it has never been associated with is temperature. There were studies that said CO2 rise lagged temp rise by 800 years, but the fraudsters at the CRU said no. We should take them at their word.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Down in flames Posted by: wagner

Comments are closed-

Failure is the ONLY option
Posted by: QQOblivion on Dec 19, 2009 12:23 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is it any surprise that the climate summit will very most likely end in almost total failure?

And you know what that means, kiddies!

Doom and damnation. BILLIONS (with a B) dead as a result.

And that is just among the human-beings.

The human species has failed. Maybe we all DESERVE to be dead. Maybe. But climate change, sadly, will be genocide for lots of the INNOCENT species as well. Lots of them.

Yes, I call this genocide, for us as well as other species.
The Nazis killed "only" 6 million. Climate change could kill billions.

(And all of us who are left will probably try to migrate to Antarctica within just decades. But, drat, there is an ozone hole over that continent! Too bad for humanity.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Failure is the ONLY option Posted by: richholland
» RE: Failure is the ONLY option Posted by: Harris20
» RE: Failure is the ONLY option Posted by: richholland

Comments are closed-

wake up and smell the end of all life as we know it
Posted by: Grasshopper on Dec 19, 2009 1:09 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
GAIA'S APPEAL, by Grasshopper Alec Kaplan 12-2009
i wrote this in memory of Paul Weiher; you can hear it at http://www.theutah.org/artist/grasshopper in its unfinished form...and you can hear other stuff at http://www.myspace.com/thegrasshoppersongs thanks for reading

Sing for me A Last Song i'm forlorn Baby
Travel torn move down into Unknown Maybe
All alone Island Stone Another voice Crazy
My burden heart to impart a Deep Art within us all
All Creatures Great and Small come to call Curtains
Save me Crave me Praise me Raise me
Braisenly Rape me Make me Disappeare'd

House me Home free Engender me Dearly
Extinct Country Breathe easy baby
i'm crying drying flying dying
Play with me Lay with me Love me Save me
Gone to sea Calamity Save me Baby
Set me free Let me be Baby Save me

Conserve me Observe me Bravely Save me
Carefully Consider me Gravely Save me
smoke me invoke me jokingly Pobre`, ci
Hold me Unfold me cold money sold me
Last song travel torn forlorn baby
Ground friend lost again long gone home
(C)Grasshopper Alec Kaplan
thanks for reading
gee, it sure was a wonderful planet we destroyed, before so many of us ever got a chance to even live

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

The Global Distribution of Wealth
Posted by: writerman on Dec 19, 2009 1:20 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Big Problem is that, much as I wish it wasn't so, we are... Screwed. The kind of changes required to our western way of life, that is, our collosal slice of the "world pie", compared to the rest of the world, are changes that are impossible to impliment, and stay within the boundaries of "capitalism" as we know it.

Dealing with the threat to our climate requires a global redistribution of wealth, and energy consumption is only one symbol of the massive injustice at the heart of how wealth is distributed.

Now, of course, the west's model of capitalism is screwed and falling apart. After centuries the balance of power in the world is changing, moving away from the US and Europe, and towards China, India and other developing nations. Unfortunately, the "world pie" has already been divided up and it isn't getting any bigger, because it can't.

Where does this leave China then? Obviously they want to develope, they don't have a choice, given the path they have chosen. The west is going to come into conflict with the rest of the world about how the "world pie" is shared out, and as the west still has such a massive military over-power, we are going to use it to protect what we have.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

too little too late. The Gaia philosophy sums it up.
Posted by: Daidactic on Dec 19, 2009 3:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sorry but have to say - even if there had been an agreement in Copenhagen it would have been too little and its definitely too late. The Gaia philosophy sums it up and Marx got it right but wrong. The inherent contradictions of capitalist development are the foundation of the destruction of the Earth as a viable environment rather than the basis of a revolution.
The victory of capitalism over socialism is the death warrant and all those terribly arrogant and vainglorious commentators who have celebrated the victory of free market forces will ultimately drown beneath the same waves that will end Western "civilisation"
Daidactic from S.Wales, UK

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

What you know for sure that just ain't so...
Posted by: kanaloa on Dec 19, 2009 4:24 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You bet you're screwed; Screwed Up! If you think that a messianic "leader" is going to save you! Suppressed inventions like cars that run on water (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDHT0hBgVOw) and other ecosensible technologies hold the key to making the transition into a viable future. Al Gore is a fraud. Obama is a bad joke. WTFU! BTW, if you must demonize a greenouse gas, then take a good look at Dihydrogen Monoxide. Yes, its a MONOXIDE; as is CARBON MONOXIDE, and we all know how bad that is! Good luck amigos. You most certainly will need it!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Run for the hills! (but bring your long undies with you!)
Posted by: Dickinseattl on Dec 19, 2009 5:17 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Actually we're screwed if so many actually believe this easily disprovable AGW nonscience! Check out the time lag in CO2 AFTER global warming - 800 Years, same as Thermohaline ocean circulation corrent. Check also the % of CO2, the weakist greenhouse gas as well as the anthropogenic contribution.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

The shape of the negotiating table has been established--
Posted by: PaulK on Dec 19, 2009 10:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a Vietnam War reference. Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho spent several years before the U.S. Christmas bombing failed, and then with the U.S. running out of options they finally agreed to have a round table with two tiny end tables, but the end tables would be moved two hand widths apart from the big table. Four years for a table?

I want a world shadow government, a government where billionaires don't appoint people to be their country's straw bosses. Only with a shadow government responsible for not killing its people and ecosystem, will a shadow climate treaty be created and fleshed out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Maybe AGW is real...
Posted by: james108 on Dec 20, 2009 9:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... and I actually believe we affect the climate. We affect the health of the earth certainly.

So far we can only prove the earth has warmed, it has warmed before, and by most projections it's going to start cooling for at least the next 10 years. And before we nitpick, climate versus local temperature, please assume I know the difference.

However, as long as the "spokespeople" for progressive action cover for the lie that we had proof of AGW, and continue to ignore that the IPCC lied their asses off to falsify "proof", distorted projections and gave information much of the world relied on from a climate of political manipulation of science, trying to get scientists and editors they called "skeptics" fired or marginalized, the "global warming movement" is based on as much ignorance and lies as those they call "deniers". I believe in global responsibility and don't agree to doing jack based on these lies. I believe in addressing things I trust, like stopping toxic and nuclear pollution, and I mean real toxins that aren't necessary for plant life and part of the natural cycle. I can imagine if I don't want to commit billions or trillions of dollars based on junk science and lies, how many conservatives and others would?

Get rid of Gore, who only seems interested on him & his Goldman buddy Blood banking billions through cap & trade, and call the IPCC into account for their junk science, have some sort of principles and we'd have way more backers and a real discussion. This "lying for people's own good" is the same excuse neocons use to convince conservatives to back military lies, and look at the result. If the common man is dumb, this constant attempt to keep them dumb "for their own good" kinda has a lot to do with it. I admit people can look past the lie of the public story, but we shouldn't have to pay liars to confuse everyone.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

YAOYO
Posted by: DaBear on Dec 21, 2009 2:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You. Are. Own. Your. Own.

That's the Owing-class to all y'all.

Best work up some kung fu skills because it's gonna come to blood. Side with the rich or side with humanity. Your choice. Your consequences.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

ed hardy
Posted by: mxcm428 on Dec 21, 2009 11:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]

Comments are closed-

Thank you very much for sharing .
Posted by: decomo on Dec 23, 2009 9:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article is very interesting. Thank you very much for sharing .
SWF Video Converter

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Barack Obama could hold the key to a new global deal to tackle global warming.
Posted by: cheapware on Dec 25, 2009 2:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After nearly a decade of George Bush's denial and obstruction, Barack Obama could hold the key to a new global deal to tackle global warming.

Which is why anyone who knows anything about climate change has been waiting for 2009 for a long time. MP4 to AVI Converter

Obama, as they see it, has arrived in the nick of time. The UN negotiations most likely to broker an international treaty have crawled into the home straight and the finishing line is in sight.

A deadline of December has been set, when the eyes of the world will be on environment ministers from some 190 countries as they search for a deal at talks in Copenhagen. If they emerge without the obligatory smiles and handshakes, then they will spoil Christmas for a great many people who care for the fate of the planet.

The Copenhagen talks are the latest in an annual series of UN meetings that trace their origins to the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio. In 1997 the talks spawned the Kyoto Protocol - the first serious attempt to regulate the greenhouse gas emissions that drive global warming. Kyoto divided the world in two, with the rich nations handed legally binding targets to restrict carbon pollution. Countries that the UN considered less developed were excused. This latter group included China, which is where the problems began. Convert MP4 to AVI

The US signed Kyoto, but Bill Clinton never submitted it for ratification to a hostile Senate, which made it clear it would oppose on economic grounds any deal that did not set binding targets for the developing world, code for China. Bush distanced the US further from what he called a "flawed treaty".

Without the US, then the world's biggest polluter, Kyoto became an exercise in damage limitation for its supporters, and a laughing stock to critics and the industry lobby groups that loved to hate it. It remains a dirty word in the US. While it has led to reductions in some rich nations, global emissions are currently rising at about 3% a year.

Copenhagen is the world's chance to agree a successor to Kyoto that brings about meaningful carbon cuts. Perhaps the last chance. And for it to succeed it needs both the US and China to sign up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

We should know something
Posted by: avatarhuman on Jan 13, 2010 5:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The IPCC 2007 Climate Forecast for this Century:

* CO2 (the most important gas) has risen from 280 ppm to 379 since pre-industrial times and its growth seems to be accelerating. Whether it does or not is the basis for 7 assumptions about future temperatures. MTS to MPG
* Temperature increase. For the next 2 decades, 0.2 deg. C (0.4 F) temperature rise per decade, slightly higher later in most models. The models are all different and respond differently to different assumptions. For the end of this century, IPCC provides 7 best estimates (for 7 assumptions) ranging from 0.6 - 4.0 C (1.1-7.2 F). Warming is likely to lie in the range 2-4.5 deg. C (3.6-8.1 F), with a most likely value of about 3 deg. C (5.4 F). Since the 1800s the temperature has risen 0.76 deg.C (1.4 F). The warming is to be greater on land, in high northern latitudes.
* Sea level rise. For 6 sets of assumptions, the mid-points are about 0.3 meters ( 1 ft.) Since 1850 sea level has risen about 200 mm (9 in.), a little less than 2 mm/yr. More recently the rate appears to be 3.1 mm/yr, now measured by altimetry satellites. (However, we learned on 22 June 2007 that the data were manipulated to achieve this!!). A good explanation is by the late John Daly, whose passing was hailed by the IPCC ClimateGate scientists.
* Other attributes. Ocean acidity should rise with reduced ph units of 0.14 to 0.35; hurricanes become more intense, perhaps less numerous; heat waves and heavy precipitation more frequent; less sea ice and snow cover; higher westerly winds in mid-latitudes; more precipitation in high latitudes, less in sub-tropics inland areas. Convert MTS to MPG

Impact Assessments Require Trust in the Climate Forecast

My specialty is in impacts assessment (oceans, coasts, fisheries, polar regions), not the science of climate change. However, to determine impacts correctly, one must understand the nature of change and its likelihood to continue. It is necessary to have trust in what the climate scientists tell you is going to happen in the future. In the IPCC structure, the science has been led by the UK and US scientists, and they have used modeling as their primary tool, with some paleoclimate analysis coming later. The Impact Assessments have been led by the Russians, who have had an intense distrust of modeling. They viewed paleoclimatology as the most valid tool: if you want to know what will happen when CO2 rises or the temperature changes, they say to look at the history of the earth. MTS to MPG Converter

As an American, working with the Russian teams, I was often caught in the middle of both camps. I learned to listen to both views, and continue to do so. In particular, we learned to distrust any science literature or impacts assessment that did not consider all data available, whether modeling, the instrumented record back into the 1800s and/or the paleo and historical temperature reconstructions. If the data are truncated, there is likely an agenda. Many of us have learned, either formally, or informally, how to detect misrepresentation by statistical treatments and graphics.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Converter HD video
Posted by: jackwen on Jan 14, 2010 9:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hello, i've found two websites Tod Converter | Mod Converter and wanted to share it with you. Good quality and my order arrived in time. Cheers

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

 
 
 
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS