Commentators

Rain (AM and PM) 13° London Hi 13°C / Lo 7°C

Copenhagen

Joss Garman: Copenhagen - Historic failure that will live in infamy

Green activist's searing despatch from Denmark


AFP/Getty Images

The most progressive US president in a generation comes to the most important international meeting since the Second World War and delivers a speech so devoid of substance that he might as well have made it on speaker-phone from a beach in Hawaii. His aides argue in private that he had no choice, such is the opposition on Capitol Hill to any action that could challenge the dominance of fossil fuels in American life. And so the nation that put a man on the Moon can't summon the collective will to protect men and women back here on Earth from the consequences of an economic model and lifestyle choice that has taken on the mantle of a religion.

Then a Chinese premier who is in the process of converting his Communist nation to that new faith (high-carbon consumer capitalism) takes such umbrage at Barack Obama's speech that he refuses to meet – sulking in his hotel room, as if this were a teenager's house party instead of a final effort to stave off the breakdown of our biosphere.

Late in the evening, the two men meet and cobble together a collection of paragraphs that they call a "deal", although in reality it has all the meaning and authority of a bus ticket, not that it stops them signing it with great solemnity.

Obama's team then briefs the travelling White House press pack – most of whom, it seems, understand about as much about global-climate politics as our own lobby hacks know about baseball. Before we know it, The New York Times and CNN are declaring the birth of a "meaningful" accord.

Meanwhile, a friend on an African delegation emails to say that he and many fellow members of the G77 bloc of developing countries are streaming into the corridors after a long discussion about the perilous state of the talks, only to see Obama on the television announcing that the world has a deal.

It's the first they've heard about it, and a few minutes later, as they examine the text, they realise very quickly that it effectively condemns their continent to a century of devastating temperature rises.

By now, the European leaders – who know this thing is a farce but have to present it to their publics as progress – have their aides phoning the directors of civil society organisations spinning that the talks have been a success.

A success? This deal crosses so many of the red lines laid out by Europe before this summit started that there are scarlet skid marks across the Bella Centre, and one honest European diplomat tells us this is a "shitty, shitty deal". Quite so.

This "deal" is beyond bad. It contains no legally binding targets and no indication of when or how they will come about. There is not even a declaration that the world will aim to keep global temperature rises below C. Instead, leaders merely recognise the science behind that vital threshold, as if that were enough to prevent us crossing it.

The only part of this deal that anyone sane came close to welcoming was the $100bn global climate fund, but it's now apparent that even this is largely made up of existing budgets, with no indication of how new money will be raised and distributed so that poorer countries can go green and adapt to climate change.

I know our politicians feel they have to smile and claim success; they feel that's the only way to keep this train on the tracks. But we've passed that point – we need to go back to first principles now. We have to admit to ourselves the scale of the problem and recognise that at its core this carbon crisis is, in fact, a political crisis.

Until politicians recognise that, they're kidding themselves, and, more than that, they're kidding us too.

Not all of our politicians deserve the opprobrium of a dismayed world. Our own Ed Miliband fought hard, on no sleep, for a better outcome; while Brazil's President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva offered to financially assist other developing countries to cope with climate change, and put a relatively bold carbon target on the table. But the EU didn't move on its own commitment (one so weak we'd actually have to work hard not to meet it), while the United States offered nothing and China stood firm.

Before the talks began, I was of the opinion that we would know Copenhagen was a success only when plans for new coal-fired power stations across the developed world were dropped. If the giant utilities saw in the outcome of Copenhagen an unmistakable sign that governments were now determined to act, and that coal plants this century would be too expensive to run under the regime agreed at this meeting, then this summit would have succeeded.

Instead, as details of the agreement emerged last night, we received reports of Japanese opposition MPs popping champagne corks as they savoured the possible collapse of their new government's carbon targets.

It's not just that we didn't get to where we needed to be, we've actually ceded huge amounts of ground. There is nothing in this deal – nothing – that would persuade an energy utility that the era of dirty coal is over. And the implications for humanity of that simple fact are profound.

I know we Greens are partial to hyperbole. We use language as a bludgeon to direct attention to the crisis we are facing, and you will hear much more of it in the coming days and weeks. But, really, it is no exaggeration to describe the outcome of Copenhagen as a historic failure that will live in infamy.

In a single day, in a single space, a spectacle was played out in front of a disbelieving audience of people who have read and understood the stark warnings of humanity's greatest scientific minds. And what they witnessed was nothing less than the very worst instincts of our species articulated by the most powerful men who ever lived.

Joss Garman is a Greenpeace activist and co-founder of Plane Stupid

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Page 1 of 3
<<[1] [2] [3] >>
Back to the science (1)
[info]icf01 wrote:
Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 12:31 am (UTC)
Here are nine distinct reasons to be skeptical about the idea of an AGW disaster. To convince me and many others of the AGW argument, they will have to be answered.

Can anyone here address these points rather than make personal attacks? (i.e. please don't call me a troll, an imbecile, a creationist, or a right-wing shill. I am none of these things).

1.The original idea is very speculative. True, adding Co2 to the atmosphere should have a warming 'greenhouse' effect, but doubling the amount would lead to a rise of only around 1°c. The theory states that this will be amplified due to the original heating putting water vapour into the air. This would double the temperature to a, still quite modest, 2°c. To create a catastrophe we then require a series of run-away feed-back mechanisms sending the whole system spiralling out of control:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html
This is an uncertain hypothesis, to say the least; even additional water vapour could have a cooling effect due to cloud refection. Isn't it likely that the Earth would have damping mechanisms rather than the opposite? No one knows - the system is fiendishly complex. So the evidence that AGW is really happening must be highly convincing; there must be well-documented records of clear and accelerating warming with no chance that it is part of a natural cycle.
2.There are natural cycles that can have nothing to do with human activity. Show me a historian or archaeologist specialising in the relevent periods (as opposed to climatologist), who doesn't believe there was a medieval warming period or a little ice-age:
http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/medieval-warm-period-rediscovered
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/climate/little_ice_age.html
3.Solar cycles. Very likely the cause of the fluctuations above:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/07/global_warming_and_solar_radia_1.html
Is anyone saying that Mars hasn't warmed recently, or just that it's irrelevent?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
4.Data collection. If you think all the data is pristine, take a look at this site:
http://www.surfacestations.org/
I doubt surface stations in developing countries are built and maintained to a better standard.
5.Data manipuation. For all I know the Russians may have devious reasons to dismay and confuse the West, but there is growing evidence that data was routinely manipulated at the CRU; adjusted upwards for no clear reason, real readings spliced onto proxy data (ouch), inconvenient data left out, etc. There are frequent references to this in the 'Climategate' emails and these are born out by analysis of original data (where it still exists). Here is a famously blatant example:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/
or this
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/12/nz-study-may-hold-key-to-faulty-world-temp-data.html

(continued)
Re: Back to the science (1)
[info]justagreenie wrote:
Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 04:49 am (UTC)
"Isn't it likely that the Earth would have damping mechanisms rather than the opposite?" There is no "likely" involved, the world is as it is, it is doing what it is doing, this isn't a matter of applying logic, or wishful thinking, or some religious view about the way the world should be, it is a matter of physics, and observations.

The world is warming because of increasing CO2 levels. It will soon begin to get ever more rapidly warm as more feedback mechanisms (loss of snow, melting of tundra, reduction of forests) take effect. Better get used to it. Your deniablog friends won't be any use then.
Re: Back to the science (1) - [info]mike4626 - Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 07:31 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Back to the science (1) - [info]justagreenie - Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 08:30 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Back to the science (1) - [info]dixiedean99 - Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 10:55 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Back to the science (1) - [info]sportingmac - Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 08:00 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Back to the science (1) - [info]justagreenie - Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 08:28 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Back to the science (1) - [info]colinru - Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 01:10 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Back to the science (1) - [info]vhawk1951 - Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 02:20 pm (UTC) Expand
THE SOLUTION, ACTIONS REQUIRED - [info]prof_use - Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 05:16 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Back to the science (1) - [info]hacky1st - Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 07:48 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Back to the science (1) - [info]hacky1st - Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 08:00 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Back to the science (1) - [info]trevor65 - Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 08:42 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Back to the science (1) - [info]dixiedean99 - Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 10:09 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Back to the science (1) - [info]dixiedean99 - Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 10:10 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Back to the science (1) - [info]bomber_the_cat - Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 11:03 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Back to the science (1) - [info]rubberbaron - Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 12:50 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Back to the science (1) - [info]icf01 - Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 01:24 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Back to the science (1) - [info]rubberbaron - Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 02:17 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Back to the science (1) - [info]icf01 - Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 03:06 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Back to the science (1) - [info]rubberbaron - Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 03:19 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Back to the science (1) - [info]icf01 - Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 03:29 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Back to the science (1) - [info]david_fta - Wednesday, 30 December 2009 at 02:49 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Back to the science (1) - [info]bemjammin - Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 01:44 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Back to the science (1) - [info]vhawk1951 - Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 02:09 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Back to the science (1) - [info]causticcommoner - Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 05:39 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Back to the science (1) - [info]vhawk1951 - Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 06:12 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Back to the science (1) - [info]sofistek - Tuesday, 22 December 2009 at 08:50 am (UTC) Expand
Back to the science (2)
[info]icf01 wrote:
Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 12:32 am (UTC)

6.Computer models. See the 'Climategate' Harry_readme file:
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/lorrie_goldstein/2009/11/29/11967916-sun.html
What this shows is a labyrinthine program that can't be made to work as required – they can't reproduce their own results! There also seems to be evidence of manipulation at this stage, too; ' manual entry' of results is mentioned, and 'Apply VERY ARTIFICIAL correction for decline!!' – what is THAT all about? At the very least their models are a complete mess and their (unreproducable) results must surely be far from reliable.
7.Clear attempts to exclude 'heretical' thought; hijacking of the peer review process, bullying the media and destroying careers:
http://www.infowars.com/climategate-peer-review-system-was-hijacked-by-warming-alarmists/
If you think there is a real 'consensus' of scientists for AGW take a look at this:
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/10/taking_liberties/entry5964504.shtml
...or the response of scientists to this piece of regular AGW journalism posing as an editorial in the American Chemical Society:
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/editor/87/8725editor.html
Strangely, the comments seem to have disappeared since I last looked; this gives a taste: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/30/american-chemical-society-members-revolting-against-their-editor-for-pro-agw-views/
8.Hiding and possible destruction of source data. Staggering! It is an absolute scientific tenet that data and methods should be open for all to see and use to replicate the results.
http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/12/climategate_iii_the_mystery_of.php
What possible reason could there be for not doing this? It makes brushing off malicious doubters easier, not more difficult. What is there to hide here? And if this incredibly important source data is bizarrely 'lost', all models and predictions deriving from it become essentially meaningless.
9.Mainstream media ignoring all of the above and far more. The 'Climategate' story was ignored for weeks and then treated as a story about criminal hackers trying to sabotage Copenhagen and revealing nothing important. Even by the lazy standards of modern journalism, this must raise eyebrows. AGW 'deniers' (ouch, nasty!) have always been portrayed as odd-balls and fanatics. If the media (for whatever reason) isn't reporting important stories and credible points of view, inquiring minds will start to sort through the evidence for themselves. Thank god for the internet!

Now, all this may amount to nothing and AGW may be shown to be correct, but please don't say: 'these things (sigh) have been answered a thousand times', they haven't; they remain hanging in the air and will remain there no matter how studiously you ignore them.



Re: Back to the science (2)
[info]duncanmarshall wrote:
Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 08:41 am (UTC)
ifc01

Most of us aren't scientists, so once again, this comes down to which sources we trust. And, of course, we all have our biases, and tendencies to select sourcs according to predisposition.

I've had a good trawl through your incredibly long list of cited links (how long did it take you to write this - did you have it all prepared in advance of reading this article, by any chance?). Some of these sites are measure, reasonable, open-minded, and a good source of varying opinion. However, what is obvious is that your impressive list falls into the same trap of selective bias. For example, here's a typical post from a frequent commenter on American Thinker:

[quote]if there is one truth is that Liberals hate three things a) Capitalism b) freedom c) Human beings. The BS of global warming allows liberals the perfect storm of being able to tax us into slavery under the guise of saving mother earth. Liberals won't be happy until we have all been cowed and subdued and they steal it all. Every penny. And they will lie and cheat in other to do it. [end quote]

Sounds completely reasonable and sane, doesn't he? His tone isn't entirely untypical of the 'sceptics' we read every day here in the Independent and elsewhere. Are you really telling me its only the liberal-left who have something other than a genuine scientific agenda?

Perhaps you really are the open-minded, non right-wing shill you claim to be, but your list does display a strong bias in favour those who clearly have non-scientific reasons to wish AGW isn't happening.

Non-pseudonymously,

Duncan Marshall
Re: Back to the science (2) - [info]someofusknow - Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 12:50 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Back to the science (2) - [info]icf01 - Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 01:07 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Back to the science (2) - [info]someofusknow - Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 01:49 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Back to the science (2) - [info]icf01 - Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 12:55 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Back to the science (2) - [info]duncanmarshall - Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 10:22 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Back to the science (2) - [info]unexpectedtiger - Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 01:16 pm (UTC) Expand
The reason why...
[info]jaded63 wrote:
Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 12:48 am (UTC)

...is quite simply that the world's top leaders have now got full cognisance of the fact that a) the science behind the theory of 'global warming' is far from indisputable, and b), more importantly for them, an increasing majority of their voters no longer believe in it.

'Slippage' on g.w. targets will steadily increase. Only a truly dramatic, indeed catastrophic rise in global temperatures, combined with no less dramatic negative effects, will reverse that trend. Basically, none of the real players are interested anymore. The dogs will bark, but the caravan has moved on. It's becoming yesterday's issue, just like the AIDS panic, the millenium bug, etc etc.
Like magic
[info]justagreenie wrote:
Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 12:55 am (UTC)
And, like magic, a deniertroll arrives with rubbish copied and pasted from deniercentral.pdf. How do they do it? They arrive faster at any article on climate change than ants do to a dropped sandwich at a picnic. And this one thinks that saying 'don't say: 'these things (sigh) have been answered a thousand times', they haven't" prevents people sating it again. Well, it doesn't, actually, what it does do is prevent any engagement at all with someone who thinks that quoting "natural cycles" (and even, god help us, "warming Mars") will do the trick. Interesting, little troll, only in the extensive use of the hacked emails - this is obviously the new marching orders from the headquarters of Deniaworld. But generally, just go away; life, and planetary life, is too short for this garbage.
Re: Like magic
[info]icf01 wrote:
Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 01:59 am (UTC)
So you didn't read what I said or any of the links, then?
Truly pathetic. Sad really.
Re: Like magic - [info]justagreenie - Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 03:18 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Like magic - [info]icf01 - Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 04:23 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Like magic - [info]colinru - Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 01:39 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Like magic - [info]sportingmac - Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 08:19 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Like magic - [info]jaded63 - Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 08:50 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Like magic - [info]justagreenie - Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 09:33 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Like magic - [info]mstamper - Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 11:57 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Like magic - [info]vhawk1951 - Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 06:17 pm (UTC) Expand
In my hand I have a piece of paper
[info]churchynet wrote:
Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 01:01 am (UTC)
A useless agreement that will condemn the world to chaos.
It also seems tragic that the biggest issues of the 21st century get $100bn yet we spend $2,000 on bailing out Merchant Bankers (bith literally and in rhyming slang).
Re: In my hand I have a piece of paper
[info]vhawk1951 wrote:
Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 05:56 pm (UTC)
my thoughts precisely
"There is not even a declaration that ....
[info]palestinian_ian wrote:
Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 01:05 am (UTC)
...the world will aim to keep global temperature rises below C".

Well that's good news surely?
[info]derekcolman wrote:
Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 01:17 am (UTC)
Joss Garman is one of the high priests of the global warming religion. Religious zeal jumps out of every sentence of this article. That, of course, is to be expected, as he is the progeny of nature loving Greenpeace members, and so has taken on his parents' beliefs and developed them to further extremes. He is typical of members of Greenpeace and his organisation, Plane Stupid, coming from a well to do family, and never really wanting for anything. Well I, for one resent him calling my way of life a religion. Like many thousands more, I started life in a working class family, where both parents worked hard, but we still had nothing. But through their efforts, and then my own hard work, I have now retired with a sufficient pension, and live in my own nice warm house, run a car, and can have a week in Benidorm once a year. Then along come these idiots who are hell bent on taking that all away from me, my children, and my grandchildren. They want make energy, fuel, and air travel so expensive that it will take us back to the poverty we suffered in the period of austerity in the 40s and 50s. Of course, it won't affect them as they are considerably more wealthy. Do I resent that? The hell I do. So, Mr. Garman, we reject your religion, stop trying to force it on us.
Fortunately for us, through a series of litigation about to emerge, the whole house of cards of the global warming religion is about to be dismantled. But there is no certainty of that because it will be fought vigourously by some very rich and powerful people.
I challenge Mr. Garman and his crew to come forward with scientific evidence to prove that CO2 generated by humans has any influence on climate. Of couse he won't for two good reasons. Firstly, there is no such evidence, and secondly, he is not a scientist.
[info]ed_fender wrote:
Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 10:46 am (UTC)
It is really funny watching them flagellate themselves though.
Ugh - [info]tominlondon - Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 02:03 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Ugh - [info]derekcolman - Monday, 21 December 2009 at 11:16 am (UTC) Expand
Thank you DerekColman - [info]frwilliams - Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 02:14 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Thank you DerekColman - [info]derekcolman - Monday, 21 December 2009 at 11:30 am (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]vhawk1951 - Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 06:05 pm (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]derekcolman - Monday, 21 December 2009 at 11:38 am (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]vhawk1951 - Monday, 21 December 2009 at 12:12 pm (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]derekcolman - Monday, 21 December 2009 at 08:43 pm (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]vhawk1951 - Monday, 21 December 2009 at 11:38 pm (UTC) Expand
This Never Should Have Happened
[info]somochris wrote:
Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 01:46 am (UTC)
That anyone entertains the idea that the warming globe is the effect of a man-made cause is beguiling, and certainly telling about the ability of "authority" to whip otherwise common-sensical people into emergency-mode based purely on an egregiously contrived (albeit GENIUS) fiction. That Copenhagen fell apart is clearly the best possible thing that could have happened once they decided to have the leaders meet in the first place. But it should never have been permitted to go far enough to warrant the time, effort, energy, and "carbon footprint" (you progressives really crack me up with those phrases) of a COP15 conference.

The slightest bit of geological history defiles the very premise on which this ruse is based by merely studying the cycles of global warming and cooling. History itself shows times in the age of this earth, certainly times when all manner of mammalian life (among other types) populated its vast reaches of land and ocean, where the climate was much warmer and when there would have been no glaciers to speak of. Yet man and animal survived.

Your puny little smokestacks are nothing to compare to a single volcanic eruption! Mother Nature provides more carbon into the atmosphere via volcanic activity and mere CO2 outgassing from oceans than two more centuries of crud-coughing factories would provide.

I am somewhat relieved that COP15 ended in relative failure, but worry still that the knock-kneed progressive pantywaists of the world will once again stir up controversy and manage to shackle progress in the name of progressivism. Unless and until then, I celebrate your failure.
Re: This Never Should Have Happened
[info]frwilliams wrote:
Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 02:20 pm (UTC)
I am amazed that people are still coming out with this "its all happened before" argument. Do you think that hundreds of serious scientists haven't considered this line of reasoning? I would carry on and refute it but there is no point wasting time. I think you are suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect. Go and look it up.
Re: This Never Should Have Happened - [info]somochris - Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 02:34 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: This Never Should Have Happened - [info]frwilliams - Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 10:15 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: This Never Should Have Happened - [info]somochris - Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 02:39 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: This Never Should Have Happened - [info]frwilliams - Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 10:26 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: This Never Should Have Happened - [info]somochris - Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 10:35 pm (UTC) Expand
How dare you
[info]ettamere wrote:
Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 03:00 am (UTC)
compare the Ponzi scheme that is AGW with WWII. You are not fit to lick the boots of the people who fought to defend this country against Nazi tyranny, so for the sake of decency man, just admit you're wrong and go and do something constructive with your life.
Question yourself why It is already yesterday new
[info]mackname wrote:
Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 04:31 am (UTC)


With all due respect, I am not still quite certain about what has happened there is giving me the whole picture or a clear hint as anything as defining failure. Nonetheless, my understanding is that we ought to cut fusil fuel consumption drastically, although for different reason, namely for having a safe and reliable market with at least minimum stress and panic from emergence of uncertain and unregulated markets.

The major obstacle seems however, is that we have not much influence to change things, not because we are wrong but for our ailing economy and weakness in relation to international managerial guidance and lack of trust from other delegates - (quite frankly, I am not even sure that our own delegate had understood clearly the sensitivity of issues in the negotiation).

The complexity of the matter is that as the world political and wealth structure is changing hands rapidly, there are many that consider any adjustment to current financial programmes would indeed interfere with their progress, dramatically, thus preventing them to join in to an uncertain and untested deal.

Finally, as long as nature doesn’t go (whole swing) toward catastrophe, it is hard to bring everyone’s attention and interest on board. The untold story is that out there, there are far more pessimists to the idea than optimists.

infamy
[info]tph197 wrote:
Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 05:17 am (UTC)
infamy, infamy, they've all got it informee.
COPENHAGEN FLOP
[info]margaret222 wrote:
Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 05:23 am (UTC)
This was the high water mark for the AGW hypothesis.

There is no point in Garman complaining - at the end of the day I suspect that sufficient politicians have begun to smell a rat that they are no longer willing to troop stolidly over a cliff. In particular, I though Merkel was particularly quiet - and she and Mr Wen [as far as I am aware ] were the only trained scientists in the whole group.

The "settled science" behind it is about to become seriously unsettled, with 4 enquiries current on "climategate" and the Russians alleging that CRU cherrypicked or manipulated climate data from their country. Similar allegations are appearing about Australian and European data.

The CLOUD experiment at CERN, if it proves out, will invalidate every climate computer model in existence for having omitted a major physical effect.

Meanwhile, in the real world there seems to be a little snow in Europe and America .......
A searing dispatch - hardly, just screed from an activist!
[info]mannygoldstein wrote:
Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 06:37 am (UTC)
"The most progressive US president in a generation..."

Hardly so, the man awarded a Nobel Peace Prize has increased the number of US troops in Afghanistan and talked of the benefits of war even as he accepted a prize for peace!

So progressive that he presided over billions of dollars for bankers and the very car makers whose energy inefficient vehicles are contributing so much to global warming while denying any real reform of the US medical system.

The author of this article is clearly not independent, he has a vested interest in promoting the idea of global warming, he and many thousands of others have made it their career of choice every bit as much as somebody who decides to work for Exxon or Shell. Nothing wrong with either choice, except hold back on the moral outrage as they are two sides of the same coin.
Most progessive president? Most important meeting since WWII?
[info]historybuff2 wrote:
Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 06:40 am (UTC)
No reason to believe this is the 'most progressive' president. Why do you assume that? Because of his skin color?

There have been many more important meetings; the Cold War ones between Russian and US leaders being clear examples, when the world clearly face the real threat of annialation.

The hyperbole of this article just shows how desperaretly out of touch the Global Warming extremists have grown; why should we agree to commit economic suicide when you offer us no proof of your misanthropic theories?
Transition Time!
[info]arowx wrote:
Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 06:44 am (UTC)
Sounds like it really is going to come down to grass roots movements like the Transition Culture to get people to move their lifestyles from a high energy footprint to a lower one and to demand from their elected officials the changes needed, or am I just an optimist!

I am in the process of writing a computer game which simulates the next 90 years and allows the player to try and prevent the worst effects of climate change. Mind you the game does give the player the power to change our energy infrasturcutre!

It's called 'Save the Silly Earthlings!' apt really, check out the my progress so far at http://blog.arowx.com

I intent to send a copy to each of the delegates at copenhagen!
Wrong -- this is one of the most successful conferences ever
[info]jeanshaw wrote:
Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 07:00 am (UTC)
Fortunately no agreement was reached , the warmists were unable to get their religion adopted by the world . The cracks in their edifice were beginning to show in the run up to the Confeence which provided sufficient doubt in the minds of the more sane delegations to make sure the wild ramblings of friends of the earth , greenpeace and other assorted NGOs were put to one side.

There will now be more time for a proper analysis of the very questionable and fraudulent warmist science to take place . The one problem remaining is that large sections of the media including the BBC are signed upto the warmist manifesto and as we have already seen want to censor anything which pours doubt on the theory.

Re: Wrong -- this is one of the most successful conferences ever
[info]dixiedean99 wrote:
Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 10:45 am (UTC)
Sorry Jean, we're all out of time. You guys have won.

You're either right and we'll carry on in our old sweet way or you're wrong and we all fry

Peace & love
Copenhagen: A fidelity beyond legality
[info]factreader wrote:
Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 07:23 am (UTC)
The manner_through which the US President Brack Obama became instrumental in making the Copenhagen summit a quasi-moral binding upon the participants_may not suffice serve the purpose since the end of the Summit has to be understood in terms of not more than "a mere fidelity beyond legality".
Joss, Joss . . . . .
[info]kiwi_chap wrote:
Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 07:28 am (UTC)
Joss, at least you can see, and concede, that hyperbole is your mother tongue. H2O = hyperbole, histrionics, overkill (must think up something for CO2).

This is where the 'warmist' camp have shot themselves in the foot. All the extravagant language, all the doomsaying talk, all the purple prose has now been used, and there's nothing much left for if/when something really bad does happen. You cannot tell everyone, editorial after editorial, year after year, that the planet is about to self-destruct in the flames of hell (and indeed there's a reigious overtone here, and didn't some activist recently plead his climate opinion was a religion?), that we are all about to fry in a conflagration of our own making, without human nature turning a deaf ear. There's only so much overblown rhetoric that the Great Public can absorb.

If you could be a little (well, a lot) more measured, and rational, and calm, you might make a greater impression. As it is, the only people you will convince are the already-converted.
The real object of Warmist infamy?
[info]marchmont wrote:
Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 07:37 am (UTC)


I thought the real bogeyman of Copenhagen was not so much China as South Africa. The Africans clearly thought the best way to provide health and prosperity to their people was by being free to expand their economy exactly as the US did in the industrial revolution. Much to the annoyance of the “climate activists”, the real inhabitants of the developing world believe the US example of achieving health and comfort through technology and subverting harsh nature for human ends is not something to be shunned but to be emulated. Such a belief undermines a fundamental premise of the Warmists that mankind is completely unable to adapt to a changing environment. We all recall Sir David King, former chief scientist of the UK, famously stating that if we did not act to reduce our carbon emissions, by the end of the century Antarctica would be the world’s only habitable continent. That divergence of opinion is much more serious than China refusing to allow a bunch of Western scientists to march all over her country monitoring her activities as if she was an Oriental Iraq.
Re: The real object of Warmist infamy?
[info]mannygoldstein wrote:
Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 04:59 pm (UTC)
Surely the US is the bogeyman? With four per cent of the world's population they use nearly forty per cent of the worlds energy. If other countries wish to emulate them, how will the owrld be able to provide enough energy?

Why do the Americans consume so much energy? Because many of their centres of population are situated in deserts such as California, New Mexico, Arizona and Texas that require prodigious amounts on enrgy to keep their homes, offices and public places cool. Many of their other population centres are situated in the North of the country and are very cold, so require massive amounts of energy to keep warm.

There public transport system is terrible, so all travel is organised around petrol-driven cars. Little wonder that they were unwilling to allow President Obama to sign up to any really significant agreements at Copenhagen?
Climate change deniers don't live in the real world
[info]kateclow wrote:
Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 07:49 am (UTC)
Those who deny climate change on the basis of 'scientific modelling' etc just need to talk to any farmer over 50 living around the Med, in Africa, is SE asia, etc. They KNOW it's happening. Whether man-made or not, by reducing black particle, methane and CO2 output, humanity could improve air qualilty (and therefore our health), negate an additional warming factor and thus slow down natural feedback mechanisms. This would re-enable food output (therefore life) in eg parts of Africa, slow down economic migration and improve all our lives - yes, yours too. In view of the decline in oil output (6% pa predicted by the IEA, or do you deny that too?), followed by gas output, doesn't it make economic sense to use natural energy sources instead of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan and now potentially Iran over every pipeline and last drop of the black stuff? And, BTW, oil is our source for plastics; coal is not. Try living without them.
Re: Climate change deniers don't live in the real world
[info]brown_colin wrote:
Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 09:29 pm (UTC)
Yes; the climate is changing. However, man's contribution to this change is so small, that it's virtually impossible to quantify. Few deny that our planet has entered another 15'000 year cycle of atmospheric, cyclical change, but many object to the hidden-hand's attempt (Obama/Brown/EU & Co) to capitalise on something which none of us have control over

So yes, be green, conserve energy and recycle, but whatever you do, don't be a patsy all your life.

Take a day off.

Copenhagen
[info]jimbolingo wrote:
Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 08:04 am (UTC)
China and the US neo-cons will stick to their rigid opionions of 'business as usual' at any cost. The planet is only important to them inasmuch as it feeds their profits and egos.

Environmentalists must accept this truth and find ways to counter it: how, I don't know, but it is clear that this is THE sticking point for any progress.
Re: Copenhagen
[info]dixiedean99 wrote:
Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 10:47 am (UTC)
They unattractive alliance runs the world Jimbo. We just have to hope for the best

Peace & love
Re: Copenhagen - [info]jeanshaw - Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 03:40 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Copenhagen - [info]dixiedean99 - Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 04:27 pm (UTC) Expand
What are YOU doing today...
[info]leon_b09 wrote:
Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 09:07 am (UTC)
to combat global warming?

1. I'll wear two jumpers and lower / cut the central heating

2. I'll eat to live, not live to eat.

3. I'll do something constructive today

God, 'sounds awful; But then again, you either want things to IMPROVE...or NOT.
Methane trapped in permafrost
[info]con_alma39 wrote:
Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 09:33 am (UTC)
If you want to be truly frightened, Google "methane permafrost". Methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, there is a vast amount of it trapped in the Siberian permafrost, and it is starting to be released. This has the potential to set off a positive feedback: more warming melts more permafrost that in turn causes more warming, and so on. Nobody knows how much of a threat this is, but there is at least a possibility that we will reach a tipping point after which a dramatic and unstoppable warming will take place. I think the onus is on the deniers to explain why they are so sure that this won't happen.
Re: Methane trapped in permafrost
[info]john_levett wrote:
Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 12:28 pm (UTC)
Or perhaps for you to explain why you are so sure that it will?

As you've already larded your post with the requisite number of 'may's and 'possibility's as well as including the 'Nobody knows how much of a threat this is' remark, you are clearly somebody with a belief rather than a rational argument.
Re: Methane trapped in permafrost - [info]unexpectedtiger - Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 03:23 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Methane trapped in permafrost - [info]john_levett - Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 04:40 pm (UTC) Expand
Nice One
[info]humble_sparrow wrote:
Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 09:34 am (UTC)
"has all the meaning and authority of a bus ticket"

All one can do is change the way one lives without government approval or sanction and hope upon hope that change will occur in the hearts and minds of ordinary people before it is too late.

Future generations will condemn us without any doubt if we don't do something soon :-(
Re: Nice One
[info]sidsnot wrote:
Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 11:31 am (UTC)
I've been condemning past generations for years but they don't seem to care or perhaps they're not listening.
Re: Nice One - [info]sidsnot - Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 12:13 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Nice One - [info]colinru - Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 01:47 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Nice One - [info]humble_sparrow - Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 05:36 pm (UTC) Expand
Garman betrays his inexperience and panic
[info]molitor wrote:
Sunday, 20 December 2009 at 09:38 am (UTC)
Your editorial staff may well be upset at the prospect of being taken over by a Russian billionaire and becoming a stable mate of the Evening Standard but what on earth are you doing giving such prominence to a member of Rent-a-Mob International in his early twenties with already over 20 arrests to his 'credit'.

Not surprisingly much of this professional actvist's record of civil disobedience betrays his inexperience in the ways of the world.

The Independent and like minded Environmentalists need to calm down,rid themselves of their primary anti-American rantings and above all stop panicking.

After all like the New Ice Age forecast by equally reputable climate scientists 30 years ago,Global Warming may never happen.
Re: Garman betrays his inexperience and panic
[info]david_fta wrote:
Saturday, 2 January 2010 at 11:17 am (UTC)
Gday Molitor,

It's funny you should mention past concerns of a forthcoming Ice Age.

William F Ruddiman shows, in "Plows, Plagues and Petroleum" that, had humans not intervened by removing carbon-sequestering forests and recycling sequestered fossil carbon to the atmosphere, the Holocene interglacial period may well have ended by now, and the world would be entering the next glacial period ("Ice Age"). In my view, the "Little Ice Age" was a harbinger of this next "Ice Age".

I've subscribed to New Scientist since the mid-1980's, and I do recall seeing reports of concerns about global cooling back then. Such reports soon disappeared, and by the early '90's, all concerns were with the possibillity of a runaway greenhouse. Certainly, global dimming due to aerosols of sulphur and lead continued up until the 1980's, when lead was removed from petrol due to concerns about respired lead toxicity, and sulphur fumes were removed from furnace due to concerns about acid rain.

Temperatures may have been restabilised over the last decade because the Chinese industrial expansion has been largely fuelled by high-sulphur coal.

Here's a story that touches on some of these points. Fast Pace of Glacier Melt in the 1940s: Lower Aerosol Pollution, ScienceDaily (Jan. 1, 2010) Retrieved January 2, 2010, from http://www.sciencedaily.com­ /releases/2009/12/091231124858.htm

Hope this helps.
Page 1 of 3
<<[1] [2] [3] >>

Columnist Comments

andrew_grice

Andrew Grice: Don't expect the Budget to be boring

Labour hopes to paint a line between Labour optimism and Tory austerity

howard_jacobson

Howard Jacobson: The salty tale of the Cornish fishermen

Boscastle had three pubs for its 800 souls, with singing in every one

richard_ingrams

Richard Ingrams: Who knows how to educate our children?

Does Boris's Latin help him deal with the congestion charge?


Loading...


Most popular in Opinion