Leading article: Next year in Bonn
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
Disappointing the outcome of the Copenhagen summit may have been. And chaotic – the word used by Ed Miliband, Secretary of State for Climate Change. But it was disappointing, in part, because expectations were so high, and one reason for the chaos was that so many countries, with such differing requirements and concerns, attended, not to speak of the specialists and NGOs demanding their say from the wings.
All is not – yet – lost. For all the recriminations emanating from different quarters yesterday, it should be recognised that there are times when lack of an agreement is a more honest result than an elegant, but empty, profession of unity whose sole purpose is to conceal differences. At least all present understood the importance of what they were trying to do. Everyone has agreed to reconvene in Germany in six weeks' time, bringing with them specific bids and targets. All effort should now be directed to ensuring that in Bonn, real, quantifiable, progress can be achieved.
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.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
Now that we are getting a better understanding of how the warmists have built their case on foundations of sand they dont want the realists amongst us to have too much opportunity to show them up for the frauds they are. There is too much money rolling into the warmist campaign for them to surrender their position and allow objective study of their fraudulent claims and science
As for calling the scientists "warmists" and calling the science fraudulent - you really don't have any idea how a peer reviewed system works, do you.
One of the interesting things which came from the release of East Anglia's e-mails was that they did not release the evidence on which the theories were based , they warned journals not to accept critical comments , tried to stop critical articles being printed and actually forced media outlets to remove critical article/comments .
The University is now under Police investigation because of their attempts to deny Fredom of Information requests
In other words peer review has not occurred.
Do stop obfuscating, please.
Sir Muir Russell is heading an independent review into a number of allegations, including th FOI issue.
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/pre
The police are investigating the email theft.
Either thay are correct and we carry on in our own sweet way, or they're wrong and we fry.
Peace & love
The sceptics have a very myopic insight into what's happening.
Anyone studying the problem of ocean acidification will realise what rising CO2 emissions will do to a vital source of humankind's food stuffs: fish.
The loss of omega 3 has huge implications, as yet off the radar.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis
Over fishing/bottom trawling merely adds to the nightmare scenario, and confirms that total lack of any
insight into resource depletion, which is the logical outcome of the current addiction to growth as, er, THE 'solution' to all problems.
Not.
The global temperature does not need to rise by a further 0.2C for this scenario to kick-in.