Climate Change

Rain (AM and PM) 8° London Hi 11°C / Lo 5°C

UK pushes for twin-track deal on climate change

Britain prepared to extend Kyoto if developing nations agree to a new, global treaty

By Michael McCarthy, Environment Editor

Ed Miliband, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change: 'We want to break the logjam and find ways through the issues raised in Copenhagen'

AP

Ed Miliband, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change: 'We want to break the logjam and find ways through the issues raised in Copenhagen'

Britain proposed a new twin-track climate deal yesterday to end the logjam which has affected international talks on global warming since the failed Copenhagen climate conference last December.

In a surprise policy U-turn, the Climate and Energy Secretary, Ed Miliband, announced that the Government would agree to an extension of the current international climate treaty, the Kyoto protocol – something developing countries have insisted on but which has so far been rejected by the UK and the European Union as a whole.

Britain would accept a renewed Kyoto, Mr Miliband said, alongside the entirely new, legally binding global deal it has been pursuing. In effect there could be two separate international climate treaties, covering emissions cuts by different countries.

The move is ultimately likely to put pressure on China, one of the countries which blocked agreement at Copenhagen and now the world's biggest CO2 emitter, to join in a comprehensive new climate arrangement covering the whole world.

But if China was intransigent at the talks in the Danish capital, it was British and EU insistence on abandoning the 1997 Kyoto treaty which was the immediate cause of the talks' breakdown, and nearly led to a complete and humiliating collapse of two years of negotiations between 192 countries.

In the end, a limited ad-hoc agreement, the "Copenhagen Accord", was put together by world leaders during the conference's final day but it fell far short of the legally binding global warming treaty, with detailed targets for cutting global emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2, which had been Copenhagen's original objective.

In announcing yesterday that Britain would accept a renewal (technically, a "second commitment period") of Kyoto, Mr Miliband was in effect starting the climate talks all over again by sending a clear signal – and making a large concession – to developing countries, for whom maintaining the 1997 treaty had taken on almost totemic status.

"We are interested in trying to break the deadlock and find ways through some of the issues raised in Copenhagen," he said. "We do not want to let a technical argument about whether we have one treaty or two derail the process. We are determined to show flexibility as long as there is no undermining of environmental principles."

Developing countries have strongly supported Kyoto because it commits them to do nothing, at least initially, while getting rich countries to take on legally binding emissions targets. The poorer countries see this as a just reflection of the fact that most of the man-made greenhouses gases in the atmosphere were put there by countries such as the US and Britain, which should therefore be the first to take action.

But more than that, the treaty – indeed, almost the word Kyoto itself – had come to be seen as a talisman of the good faith of rich countries, while abandoning it tantamount to a betrayal of the developing nations.

In its place, Britain wanted a new treaty which would bring in all countries of the world, including the US – which George W Bush withdrew from Kyoto in 2001 – and commit the developing countries for the first time to cut back their own emissions, which from now on will far exceed the CO2 output of the developed world. China overtook the US as the world's biggest CO2 emitter in 2007.

Britain fought hard to achieve this new deal in behind-the-scenes negotiations, and persisted in the position despite many warnings that the poorer countries were simply too attached to Kyoto to give it up. In the end, the draft text of the non-Kyoto deal was leaked, widely criticised by developing countries as a betrayal, and the talks ran into the ground.

Britain still wants the new arrangement, binding on all countries, and yesterday Mr Miliband insisted that it was the only way forward.

As the price of attaining it, he said the UK would accept a renewal of Kyoto, so that there would in effect be two international climate treaties running in parallel. But he stressed that Britain would not accept one without the other.

In part, this is a response to the bloody nose the Government was given in Denmark, and a recognition that its hard-line, no-Kyoto policy was unrealistic. But it is also smart politics, as it will remove the objections of developing countries, but box China into a corner with its own objections to a new legal deal.

"We are uncompromising about the need for a legal framework covering everyone, but we are willing to be flexible about the precise form that takes," Mr Miliband said. "By making these proposals, we can take away this myth that developed countries were trying to destroy Kyoto and get on with a legal treaty."

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

Science and Public Policy Institute :HOW GOVERNMENT CORRUPTS SCIENCE
[info]yorks07 wrote:
Thursday, 1 April 2010 at 12:34 am (UTC)
HOW GOVERNMENT CORRUPTS SCIENCE

by Arthur Robinson, Ph.D. | March 3, 2010

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/commentaries/how_govt_corrupts_sci.pdf
Join the WAR against climate change
[info]ernesto10 wrote:
Thursday, 1 April 2010 at 06:11 am (UTC)
Great news. The lack of action so far is criminal. And for all those who say the science isn't settled perhaps they might like to explain why the military is taking it so seriously...

http://greenexplorer.ovi.com/getinspired/europe/united-kingdom/military-joins-the-battle-against-climate-change/

Maybe they're just part of the global conspiracy too!
Re: Join the WAR against climate change
[info]mr_recalcitrant wrote:
Thursday, 1 April 2010 at 08:21 am (UTC)
Global temperatures are in freefall. http://preview.tinyurl.com/ykrydoh

Our planet is on the cusp of an Ice Age. Many sources of data that provide our knowledge base of long-term climate change indicate that the warm, twelve thousand year-long Holocene period is over. Earth will shortly return to Ice Age conditions for the next 100,000 years.

Ice cores, ocean sediment cores, the geologic record, and studies of ancient plant and animal populations all demonstrate a regular cyclic pattern of Ice Age glacial maximums which each last about 100,000 years, separated by intervening warm interglacial�s, each lasting about 12,000 years.
Long-term climate data shows a strong correlation with three astronomical phases known as the Milankovich cycles. The Milankovich cycles include the tilt of the earth, which varies over a 41,000-year period; the shape of the earths orbit which changes over a period of 100,000 years, and the Precession of the Equinoxes known as the earths wobble which rotates gradually in the direction of earths axis every 26,000 years.

According to the Milankovich theory of Ice Age causation, these three astronomical cycles each affect the amount of solar radiation, which reaches the earth. These phases act together to produce an Ice Age interspersed with warm interglacial periods. In short, climate change is a regular and natural event.
The French mathematician Joseph Adhemar first presented elements of the astronomical theory of Ice Age causation in 1842, the English prodigy Joseph Croll developed it further in 1875, and the Serbian mathematician Milutin Milankovich in the 1920s and 30s established the theory in its present form. In 1976 the prestigious journal �Science� published a landmark paper by John Imbrie, James Hays, and Nicholas Shackleton entitled �Variations in the Earth's orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages,� which described the correlation which the trio of scientist/authors had found between the climate data obtained from ocean sediment cores and the patterns of the astronomical Milankovich cycles. Since the late 1970s, the Milankovich theory has remained the predominant theory to account for Ice Age causation among climate scientists, and hence the Milankovich theory is described in textbooks of climatology and in encyclopedia articles about the Ice Ages.
Re: Join the WAR against climate change
[info]bbb_iii wrote:
Thursday, 1 April 2010 at 11:30 am (UTC)
What exactly are you trying to say? You've posted this up several times.

Do you seriously believe that the US military is concerned with the Environment?

" Maybe they're just part of the global conspiracy too! " ...Nah, they're just free spirits roaming around the world firing their 'love' bombs willy nilly at little villages of fear, rejuvinating them with enlightenment and tranquil harmony.

I'm sure the Afghan sheep herder will be relieved to hear, after his wife and children have had their limbs blown off that the tank that delivered the fatal blow to his family has the lowest CO2 emissions in its class!
Professor Richard Lindzen :The Climate Science Isn't Settled
[info]yorks07 wrote:
Thursday, 1 April 2010 at 12:39 am (UTC)
The Climate Science Isn't Settled

Confident predictions of catastrophe are unwarranted..

"The notion that complex climate "catastrophes" are simply a matter of the response of a single number, GATA, to a single forcing, CO2 (or solar forcing for that matter), represents a gigantic step backward in the science of climate. Many disasters associated with warming are simply normal occurrences whose existence is falsely claimed to be evidence of warming. And all these examples involve phenomena that are dependent on the confluence of many factors. "

Professor Lindzen is professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
And you think it was the Climate Research Unit that conned you?
[info]fin_d_empire_7 wrote:
Thursday, 1 April 2010 at 06:15 pm (UTC)
You want a real climategate and not just a handful of out-of-context quotes from millions of bytes of emails, the Exxon- and Philip Morris-bankrolled quack Richard Lindzen is your guy. Now pay attention you attention-deficient genetically-damaged denialists, this is going to require advanced reading comprehension skills:

Sourcewatch on Richard Linzen:
He is one of the leading global warming skeptics and is a member of the Science, Health, and Economic Advisory Council, of the Annapolis Center[1], a Maryland-based think tank which has been funded by corporations including ExxonMobil.

Lindzen has been a keynote speaker at media events and conferences of a range of think tanks disputing climate change including the Heartland Institute . . .

Sourcewatch on that Heartland Institute:
Heartland calls itself "a genuinely independent source of research and commentary," its has been a frequent ally of, and funded by, the tobacco industry.

Roy E. Marden, a former member of Heartland's board of directors, was until May 2003 the manager of industry affairs for the Philip Morris (PM) tobacco company, where his responsibilities included lobbying and "managing company responses to key public policy issues"

The Institute campaigns in support of:
  • "Common-sense environmentalism", such as opposition to the the Kyoto Protocol aimed at countering global warming

  • Genetically engineered crops and products;

  • The privatization of public services;

  • The deregulation of health care insurance;
I won't bore you with a list of the cash payments that Philip Morris made to Heartland. Suffice it to say that it's so embarrassing Heartland stopped disclosing its finances.

Lindzen too has become more careful about covering up his source of income but it hasn't always been so:
Ross Gelbspan, journalist and author, wrote a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine which was critical of Lindzen and other global warming skeptics. In the article, Gelbspan reports Lindzen charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC."
A decade later Boston Globe columnist Alex Beam reported, based on an interview with Lindzen, that "he accepted $10,000 in expenses and expert witness fees from fossil- fuel types in the 1990s, and has taken none of their money since."

So the man is clearly a shill but even so, he could be a good scientist, even if he is morally deficient, as witnessed by his following statement to the BBC:
Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who describes Exxon Mobil as "the only principled oil and gas company I know in the US."

"They have a CEO who is not going to be bamboozled by nonsense," he adds.

Sadly, Lindzen is not only a shill but a quack. His pet theory of convective cooling has been shot down in flames:
"Lindzen's 1990 theory predicted that warmer conditions at.the surface would lead to cooler, drier conditions at the top of the troposphere. Studies of the behavior of the troposphere in the tropics fail to find the cooling and drying Lindzen predicted.

However, the data supporting this hypothesis is weak, and even Lindzen has stopped presenting it as an alternative to the conventional model of climate change."

So, had a good read, my denialist chums? Who am I kidding? You never got past the first sentence, did you? But you all have an opinion nevertheless, don't you? You're way too smart to be fooled by thousands of IPCC scientists. The guys paid by Big Oil, they're the ones you trust. You know those old sayings about truth coming out of the mouths of childeren and fools? They weren't talking about you.
Professor Richard Lindzen / Dr Roy Spencer.....
[info]yorks07 wrote:
Thursday, 1 April 2010 at 12:48 am (UTC)
Richard Lindzen on the Copenhagen Climate Conference at the flaws in climate alarmism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfWDAmT1bh0

DR ROY SPENCER : Testimony before Senate on Climate Change (reject AGW)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qzf6z-oHP8U
Twin Track on climate change
[info]john_heppell wrote:
Thursday, 1 April 2010 at 04:03 am (UTC)
When will the deluded stop this SCAM?
Join the WAR against climate change
[info]ernesto10 wrote:
Thursday, 1 April 2010 at 05:36 am (UTC)
Great news. The lack of action so far is criminal. And for all those who say the science isn't settled perhaps they might like to explain why the military is taking it so seriously...

http://greenexplorer.ovi.com/getinspired/europe/united-kingdom/military-joins-the-battle-against-climate-change/

Maybe they're just part of the global conspiracy too!
Re: Join the WAR against climate change
[info]mr_recalcitrant wrote:
Thursday, 1 April 2010 at 08:19 am (UTC)
Global temperatures are in freefall. http://preview.tinyurl.com/ykrydoh

Our planet is on the cusp of an Ice Age. Many sources of data that provide our knowledge base of long-term climate change indicate that the warm, twelve thousand year-long Holocene period is over. Earth will shortly return to Ice Age conditions for the next 100,000 years.

Ice cores, ocean sediment cores, the geologic record, and studies of ancient plant and animal populations all demonstrate a regular cyclic pattern of Ice Age glacial maximums which each last about 100,000 years, separated by intervening warm interglacial�s, each lasting about 12,000 years.
Long-term climate data shows a strong correlation with three astronomical phases known as the Milankovich cycles. The Milankovich cycles include the tilt of the earth, which varies over a 41,000-year period; the shape of the earths orbit which changes over a period of 100,000 years, and the Precession of the Equinoxes known as the earths wobble which rotates gradually in the direction of earths axis every 26,000 years.

According to the Milankovich theory of Ice Age causation, these three astronomical cycles each affect the amount of solar radiation, which reaches the earth. These phases act together to produce an Ice Age interspersed with warm interglacial periods. In short, climate change is a regular and natural event.
The French mathematician Joseph Adhemar first presented elements of the astronomical theory of Ice Age causation in 1842, the English prodigy Joseph Croll developed it further in 1875, and the Serbian mathematician Milutin Milankovich in the 1920s and 30s established the theory in its present form. In 1976 the prestigious journal �Science� published a landmark paper by John Imbrie, James Hays, and Nicholas Shackleton entitled �Variations in the Earth's orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages,� which described the correlation which the trio of scientist/authors had found between the climate data obtained from ocean sediment cores and the patterns of the astronomical Milankovich cycles. Since the late 1970s, the Milankovich theory has remained the predominant theory to account for Ice Age causation among climate scientists, and hence the Milankovich theory is described in textbooks of climatology and in encyclopedia articles about the Ice Ages.
We've entered an Ice Age. The planet is cooling.
[info]mr_recalcitrant wrote:
Thursday, 1 April 2010 at 08:13 am (UTC)
Global temperatures are in freefall. http://preview.tinyurl.com/ykrydoh

Our planet is on the cusp of an Ice Age. Many sources of data that provide our knowledge base of long-term climate change indicate that the warm, twelve thousand year-long Holocene period is over. Earth will shortly return to Ice Age conditions for the next 100,000 years.

Ice cores, ocean sediment cores, the geologic record, and studies of ancient plant and animal populations all demonstrate a regular cyclic pattern of Ice Age glacial maximums which each last about 100,000 years, separated by intervening warm interglacial�s, each lasting about 12,000 years.
Long-term climate data shows a strong correlation with three astronomical phases known as the Milankovich cycles. The Milankovich cycles include the tilt of the earth, which varies over a 41,000-year period; the shape of the earths orbit which changes over a period of 100,000 years, and the Precession of the Equinoxes known as the earths wobble which rotates gradually in the direction of earths axis every 26,000 years.

According to the Milankovich theory of Ice Age causation, these three astronomical cycles each affect the amount of solar radiation, which reaches the earth. These phases act together to produce an Ice Age interspersed with warm interglacial periods. In short, climate change is a regular and natural event.
The French mathematician Joseph Adhemar first presented elements of the astronomical theory of Ice Age causation in 1842, the English prodigy Joseph Croll developed it further in 1875, and the Serbian mathematician Milutin Milankovich in the 1920s and 30s established the theory in its present form. In 1976 the prestigious journal �Science� published a landmark paper by John Imbrie, James Hays, and Nicholas Shackleton entitled �Variations in the Earth's orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages,� which described the correlation which the trio of scientist/authors had found between the climate data obtained from ocean sediment cores and the patterns of the astronomical Milankovich cycles. Since the late 1970s, the Milankovich theory has remained the predominant theory to account for Ice Age causation among climate scientists, and hence the Milankovich theory is described in textbooks of climatology and in encyclopedia articles about the Ice Ages.
Re: We've entered an Ice Age. The planet is cooling.
[info]frwilliams wrote:
Thursday, 1 April 2010 at 12:49 pm (UTC)
However many times you repeat this spiel about Milankovich cycles - which nobody disputes - doesn't alter the fact that "the cusp" of an nice age could mean anything within the next few thousand years, whereas the timescale over which global warming has been occurring - and during which the AGW concept says that man has been a major cause - is tiny by comparison. The fact that underlying cyclical trends may (or may not)mean that we should be getting gradually colder over millennia doesn't mean that the man-made greenhouse effect isn't counteracting this trend. The two forces are operating at vastly differing timescales - it is what happens this century that counts for us, particularly the first half of it.

It seems ridiculous to me to say that global temperatures are "in freefall". The decade 2000-2009 was the warmest on record according to all three of the main global databases, and 2009 was either the second or third warmest year, depending upon which database you go by (differences between databases are small). If you plot out global annual mean temperatures for the last 130-150 years (i.e. the time during which "real" temperature records have been available) you will see several lull periods in an otherwise continuing overall upward trend. These leveling off periods (which, like all groups of years are of course very zig-zaggy)can be related to oceanic cycles such as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, a downward trend in which matched the leveling/cooling period in the mid 20th century, for example.

No one claims that there aren't other cyclical processes at work, but the Milankovitch cycle is not relevant to the AGW timescale for the reasons I have stated above and in my post yesterday.

When I made some of the above points yesterday you responded by a spurt of rather unpleasant invective and name-calling, which I see seems to have been removed from the thread. I hope that if you feel moved to reply to this you will at least use some polite logical argument, instead of rudely firing off from the hip.
Re: We've entered an Ice Age. The planet is cooling.
[info]mr_recalcitrant wrote:
Thursday, 1 April 2010 at 01:30 pm (UTC)
As you well know, during respiration, plants and animals consume oxygen and emit carbon dioxide. Such is life! Just for breathing, humans emit per person each day some 1,140 grams of CO2, assuming they eat normally and follow the mean diet of 2,800 kcal (more or less, since the caloric efficiency of burnt carbon also depends on the type of food: fat, protein or carbohydrates).

The amount of CO2 emitted per person per day is not negligible. It is equivalent to the emission of a car in a 5 km stretch.

If we multiply the 1,140 grams/day by 6 billion persons then, just for breathing, humanity emits per year some 2.5 billion tons of CO2 . . . a considerable amount, more than the reduction required by the Kyoto Protocol (that reduction is a bit less than 1 billion tons, 5% of the 1990 emission).

But the net balance between the carbon absorbed by feeding and the carbon emitted by breathing is almost zero, so is the same how many people we are. Nevertheless a little bit of the carbon we eat is transformed in methane, wich molecule has a greater potential of warming than the CO2 ...

In other words, no amount of CO/2 reduction (however profitable for advocates of AGW) is going to make one jot of difference to the warming/cooling of this planet.

And you know it.
Re: We've entered an Ice Age. The planet is cooling.
[info]frwilliams wrote:
Thursday, 1 April 2010 at 02:52 pm (UTC)
Forgive me but you seem to have missed the whole point about global warming and greenhouse gases. The balance between the carbon you consume in food and that which you expel as CO2 and methane is indeed zero, unless you are either gaining or losing weight. In fact, the carbon cycle within the biosphere (which includes the atmosphere)is a closed system. There is always the same number of carbon atoms somewhere in the system - if you include all the carbon stores, including coal and oil (fossil fuels). Fossil fuels accumulated over hundreds of millions of years, coal being the result of the huge amounts of vegetation that accumulated when life first got going on Earth, soaking up CO2 from what was about 10% of the atmosphere to something similar to the present levels (0.04%), with oil resulting from the accumulation of marine life (e.g. algae, plankton). These accumulations remained locked away largely until the industrial revolution, since when we have been releasing them into the atmosphere at a huge and increasing rate. The earth's natural accumulating systems - mainly increased plant growth and residues and the oceans - have not been able to keep up with the increases in atmospheric carbon gases, and increased temperatures have resulted in positive feedback mechanisms, i.e. further increases in CO2 and methane release from soils etc, increased production of nitrous oxide (a very powerful greenhouse gas, which incidentally is also increased by use of nitrogen fertilizers), increased concentration of water vapour, and a reduced capacity of oceans to absorb CO2. Other activities such as cutting down forests and ploughing grassland also release CO2 and reduce carbon storage capacity. This is why atmospheric CO2 concentration has risen by about 40% over the last 150 years or so.

The whole point is that we have released masses of carbon into the active system that were effectively locked away from it for many millions of years.

The effect of the proportion of carbon that is consumed by humans and released as methane instead of CO2 is infinitessimally small by comparison with the above processes. Remember that all the carbon you consume in food was originally extracted from the atmosphere by plants. And when plants lose CO2 by respiration they lose no more than they extracted from the air in the first place.
Re: We've entered an Ice Age. The planet is cooling.
[info]mr_recalcitrant wrote:
Thursday, 1 April 2010 at 03:06 pm (UTC)
What are you babbling on about?

Studies of both natural and managed ecosystems suggest that all sectors of the biosphere will be benefited by the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content, with the greatest relative benefits going to those areas currently possessing the lowest growth potentials, due either to a lack of needed resources or the presence of environmental stresses. Wishing to reap these benefits now, however, many commercial greenhouse operators flood their facilities with extra CO2 and profit today from the added prowess that will be possessed by the plants of tomorrow, just as we currently reap the benefits - among which is an actual doubling of plant water use efficiency - that have resulted from the doubling of the air's CO2 content that has occurred since the peak of the last ice age some 18,000 years ago.

These ongoing CO2-induced enhancements of vegetative productivity and water use efficiency are major forces in helping ecosystems maintain their biodiversity; for with more primary production, more species are enabled to maintain their numbers at levels required to ensure their continued viability. In addition, it has been demonstrated that plants of different species share resources via fungal linkages among their root systems. And as the flows of water and nutrients through these fungal conduits typically move from plants that possess sufficient quantities of these substances to those that lack them, this phenomenon promotes coexistence and ecosystem species richness.

CO2-induced carbon sequestration has been observed in the soils of several agro-ecosystems; and the potential for it to occur in natural grasslands and savannas has been clearly demonstrated. Of all of Earth's ecosystems, however, forests hold the greatest potential for removing CO2 from the atmosphere and storing its carbon; and they can do so via processes that remain viable for millennia.

In fact, there is considerable evidence that Earth's forests are already sequestering vast amounts of carbon in response to the aerial fertilization effect of the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content that is fueling increases in forest productivity and range expansions across the globe.

In other words, CO2 isn't the "threat" you claim it to be.

And you know it!
Re: We've entered an Ice Age. The planet is cooling.
[info]midwinter1947 wrote:
Thursday, 1 April 2010 at 04:57 pm (UTC)
If you read what frwilliams wrote you'll (maybe) understand.

Simply put, he's saying that carbon is naturally and historically in-balance and that it is only human actions - releasing stored carbon - which are increasing the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Incidentally, this has increased by around 35% since industrialisation.

The problem is that the release of CO2 is not static - it's accelerating rapidly as countries like China, India, Brazil, etc develop; as the world population increases; and as the global capacity to absorb this excess CO2 in carbon-sinks like forests and the oceans is being diminished (also by human actions).

So, what do we do? Wait for your promised ice-age which may be thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of years away? Or, do we control ourselves and stabilise the situation? Power is nothing without control!
Emissions regulation, why wait?
[info]frenchpete wrote:
Thursday, 1 April 2010 at 08:19 am (UTC)
Waiting for an agreement from other countries on emissions sounds reasonable, but isn't! It's a bit like saying you won't discipline your own child unless other families with a history of unruly children discipline theirs, you just know they won't.
Most Asian countries unfortunately have a very poor track record on all enviroinmental issues, be it from pollution of the air, rivers or sea, de-forestation and protection of the environment and species in general. To wait for them to suddenly sign up to binding targets is like expecting a Swiss banker to come clean about money laundering...it won't happen.
We have a responsibility to our children and future generations to start acting now, on our own, even though it may create some "difficulties" in trade.
Cheap... actually expensive... talk
[info]junkkmale wrote:
Thursday, 1 April 2010 at 10:13 am (UTC)
http://www.propertywire.com/news/europe/england-faces-severe-shortage-200909293539.html

In light of other current topics, from Mr. Brown's 'Rivers of ex-voters' speech to Mr. Miliband's 'we've met some guys who want us to give them more of your money', on matters of immigration, population and climate change ambition and joined up government, any input on why we need 250,000 extra homes/year (reiterated on the TV news today), much less where these might end up, presumably consuming nothing at all and emitting only pixie dust?
Koyoto
[info]1scientist wrote:
Thursday, 1 April 2010 at 10:15 am (UTC)
There is just one glaring problem here. All of the scientific basis of the Koyoto Protocol has been proven to be wrong.

The famous "Hockey stick curve" was shown to be at best a programming error and at worst fraud - this will soon be decided in the courts.

The Vladivistock ice core samples turned around and bit Koyoto when better analysis showed that CO2 did not cause a rise in temperature - but that CO2 increased after the temperature went up - with a lag of about 800 years.

The climate models predicted that global warming would be gretest at the poles - but the Scott Amundsen weather station at the South Pole has shown no change in the last 30 years.

If there is another Koyoto then it should be about making politicians criminally responsible and about controlling politicians - not about climate. Guess who is set to become the first "carbon credit billionaire" - yes, Al Gore. That's what it's all about folks.
Bush
[info]falanf wrote:
Thursday, 1 April 2010 at 01:36 pm (UTC)
Whether or not GW is real and down to us, can we now admit that Bush and the US got it right by refusing to sign up to a Kyoto-type treaty that did not include all polluters. Furthermore, can we also admit that many of those countries who did sign up (and slagged-off the US for not doing so) did not actually meet their own committments. Talk is cheap!
Re: We've entered an Ice Age. The planet is cooling.
[info]fin_d_empire_7 wrote:
Thursday, 1 April 2010 at 06:27 pm (UTC)
The denialist with the stuffed cat avatar thinks he can hide the Exxon-paid shills he's parroting behind a tinyurl link. Just a couple of clicks further on we come across our old friend Roy Spencer, the creationist nutter with a PhD who gets funded by reactionary white southern money as well as by big corporate northern money:
Spencer is a prominent global warming skeptic. Since February 2004 he has been a columnist for TCS Daily writing over forty columns, almost entirely on the the topic of global warming. Until 2006, TCS Daily was run by DCI Group, a lobbying firm that works for ExxonMobil. [2]

Spencer is a speaker at the International Conference on Climate Change (2009) organized by the Heartland Institute think tank.

I believe I already explained who bankrolls The Heartland Institute.
Re: We've entered an Ice Age. The planet is cooling.
[info]falanf wrote:
Thursday, 1 April 2010 at 08:02 pm (UTC)
Mr fin. You know nothing about me but I know something about you - and that is that you avoided answering my question by trotting out the usual silly insults. Not very convincing.........
Re: We've entered an Ice Age. The planet is cooling.
[info]fin_d_empire_7 wrote:
Friday, 2 April 2010 at 07:11 am (UTC)
Is your avatar a stuffed cat? No. Did you make any mention of Roy Spencer? No. Is there a URL anywhere in your post, tiny or not? No. Then what are you gibbering on about?

However, your post about the top polluter not signing up because the other polluters aren't is at least topical, unlike the spam posted by the other denialists. Ok, let's talk about treaties. When Copenhagen collapsed, everybody blamed China:

China holds the world to ransom


Beijing accused of standing in the way of climate change treaty at Copenhagen as US throws down the gauntlet by backing $100bn fund to help poorest countries

By Michael McCarthy, Environment Editor, in Copenhagen

Now they tell us it was the EU that sank the deal:
But if China was intransigent at the talks in the Danish capital, it was British and EU insistence on abandoning the 1997 Kyoto treaty which was the immediate cause of the talks' breakdown, and nearly led to a complete and humiliating collapse of two years of negotiations between 192 countries.

The only reason the Indy tells us that is to play up to Gordy's PR stunt - another pathetic, shameless, and desperate bid to con the public and wheedle a few poll points. Crash Gordon is saving the world yet again, you heard it here first. And that's the only reason that the Indy has temporarily desisted from bashing China for the Copenhagen fiasco.
Re: We've entered an Ice Age. The planet is cooling.
[info]falanf wrote:
Friday, 2 April 2010 at 09:05 am (UTC)
Oops, sorry, thought you were being rude about my cat.......and were addressing other posters at the same time. But my comments about GB and the US and the hypocrisy of the Kyoto signers stands.
Bonkers
[info]derekcolman wrote:
Thursday, 1 April 2010 at 07:15 pm (UTC)
Ed Miliband must have lost all touch with reality. Neither China or the USA are signed up to the Kyoto protocol, and between them they produce over 40% of man made CO2 emissions. As the UK only produces 2%, any reduction made will just be a drop in the ocean, and will be easily overtaken by China's increasing output. The only noticeable effect from Ed Milliband's plan will be the ever increasing dole queues. There will certainly be no measurable effect on climate.

Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date