Global Climate Change Agreement

[Jingthing]

If you don't care, I don't care. I don't have kids. Those with kids, you really should care.

I personally think the evidence is compelling. Just watched a BBC docu showing the effects already, polar melting (dramatic and happening much faster than previously predicted), Bangladesh flooding, etc. I am not a scientist. All I can do is trust mainstream scientists on this. I think a better bet than listening to blowhards like Rush Limbaugh and "Drill Baby Drill" Sarah Palin.

Edited December 11, 2009 by Jingthing

[yabaaaa]

If you don't care, I don't care. I don't have kids. Those with kids, you really should care.

I personally think the evidence is compelling. Just watched a BBC docu showing the effects already, polar melting (dramatic and happening much faster than previously predicted), Bangladesh flooding, etc. I am not a scientist. All I can do is trust mainstream scientists on this. I think a better bet than listening to blowhards like Rush Limbaugh and "Drill Baby Drill" Sarah Palin.

I do care that the money alledgedly being thrown at this con could be much much beter spent, they have pushed it along brillianlty, reality is I cant see many countries being even remotley able to afford it especially now.

The BBC are so biased its unbelievable.

Bangladesh floooding oH come on do you know where its situated???? http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHa...ew.php?id=15682

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/03/goddard_polar_ice/

Edited December 11, 2009 by yabaaaa

[RickBradford]

All I can do is trust mainstream scientists on this.

You mean people like:

Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachuestts Institute of Technology

Dr Roy Spencer, former Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center.

Dr. John R. Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville

Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, former head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University

Professor Fred Singer, former Director of the US Satellite Service and Vice Chairman of the National Advisory Committee for Oceans and Atmosphere

......

These scientists, and many more around the world state:

* the science surrounding man-made global warming is far from settled

* much of the work "proving" man-made global warming has been shown to be flawed

* political pressure has served to drive the need to find "proof" of man-made global warming

* the science needs to be re-examined openly and independently before any disastrous steps are taken

If you truly trust mainstream scientists, then you should add the views of these people to your store of knowledge on the subject.

[ThailandTigers]

Global Warming = New Religion.

Its a faith based science, one very similar to Alchemy, everyone thought that was on the ball too long ago.

I want them to impose taxes and regulations galore on THE NEWS MEDIA as they are the only fools believing this hook line and sinker.

ITS A THEORY not A FACT!

Theories are not a good basis for taxes.

Feel free to repeat that too yourself in 30 years when Bangkok is fighting back rising ocean levels, that are threatening to engulf the city.

[Orac]

All I can do is trust mainstream scientists on this.

You mean people like:

Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachuestts Institute of Technology

Dr Roy Spencer, former Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center.

Dr. John R. Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville

Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, former head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University

Professor Fred Singer, former Director of the US Satellite Service and Vice Chairman of the National Advisory Committee for Oceans and Atmosphere

......

These scientists, and many more around the world state:

* the science surrounding man-made global warming is far from settled

* much of the work "proving" man-made global warming has been shown to be flawed

* political pressure has served to drive the need to find "proof" of man-made global warming

* the science needs to be re-examined openly and independently before any disastrous steps are taken

If you truly trust mainstream scientists, then you should add the views of these people to your store of knowledge on the subject.

I think what has made me more skeptical of the AGW arguement over the past few months is the number of scientists who are now coming out forcefully to disagree with the prevailing view that it exists. I am no scientist and, like a lot of people I think, my view sways from one side to the other depending on which argument I have heard most recently as both sides are passionately put with convincing statisics and proof. As a non-scientist I am well aware that I will never be able to come to a decision on this myself as the issues are far too technical for me to understand and, whichever side uses a persuasive point or 'fact' I have yet to see one that cannot be discreditted or counteracted with an equally salient 'fact'.

What I would like to see is the large body of scientists who are against the theory be convinced of the merits of the argument for AGW as these are the real experts. If there truly was a 'global consensus' with just a few cranks shouting from the outside then that would do me, however, this is not the case and the voices of discent are now significant, organised and respectable. If these people cannot be convinced then I cannot see how there can be a claim of consensus on this issue.

[thaimite]

If you don't care, I don't care. I don't have kids. Those with kids, you really should care.

I personally think the evidence is compelling. Just watched a BBC docu showing the effects already, polar melting (dramatic and happening much faster than previously predicted), Bangladesh flooding, etc. I am not a scientist. All I can do is trust mainstream scientists on this. I think a better bet than listening to blowhards like Rush Limbaugh and "Drill Baby Drill" Sarah Palin.

And the BBC are a great source of unbiased information?

As reported in this article. long term BBC reporter Peter Sissons recently criticised the BBC policy of silencing dissenters of Global warming theories.

n a wide-ranging attack, he also claims it is now 'effectively BBC olicy' to stifle critics of the consensus view on global warming. He says: 'I believe I am one of a tiny number of BBC interviewers who have so much as raised the possibility that there is another side to the debate on climate change.

[RPCVguy]

All I can do is trust mainstream scientists on this.

You mean people like:

Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachuestts Institute of Technology

Dr Roy Spencer, former Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center.

Dr. John R. Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville

Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, former head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University

Professor Fred Singer, former Director of the US Satellite Service and Vice Chairman of the National Advisory Committee for Oceans and Atmosphere

......

These scientists, and many more around the world state:

* the science surrounding man-made global warming is far from settled

* much of the work "proving" man-made global warming has been shown to be flawed

* political pressure has served to drive the need to find "proof" of man-made global warming

* the science needs to be re-examined openly and independently before any disastrous steps are taken

If you truly trust mainstream scientists, then you should add the views of these people to your store of knowledge on the subject.

Several scientists were listed as valid opponents to the majority opinion that global warming is significantly both a threat and of human cause. Below are Wikipedia excerpts of their opinions so as to demonstrate the minutia of argument remaining. To me the denialists are acting similarly to the expert witnesses brought in by tobacco companies in decades past. Indeed, the Heartland Institute was a major source for the tobacco industry then, and appears to have become similarly involved with the oil industry now.

I also want to point out that the consequences of ignoring the majority of scientists are to gamble the viability of our current agricultural and oceanic stability. Dealing with the possibility that the majority of scientists are correct is like buying an insurance hedge against any other life/ health/ or accident possibility.

Lindzen has contributed to several articles on climate change in the mainstream media. In 1996, Lindzen was interviewed by William Stevens for an article in the New York Times.^[16] In this article, Lindzen expressed his concern over the validity of computer models used to predict future climate change. Lindzen said that computer models may have overpredicted future warming because of inadequate handling of the climate system's water vapor feedback. The feedback due to water vapor is a major factor in determining how much warming would be expected to occur with increased atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide. Lindzen said that the water vapor feedback could act to nullify future warming. According to Stevens, scientists who worked on computer climate models did not accept Lindzen's nullification hypothesis.

In June 2001, Lindzen wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal, stating that "there is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long-term climate trends and what causes them" and "I cannot stress this enough – we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to carbon dioxide or to forecast what the climate will be in the future. That is to say, contrary to media impressions, agreement with the three basic statements tells us almost nothing relevant to policy discussions."^[9] In July, Lindzen was interviewed by Fred Guterl for Newsweek.^[17] Other experts also contributed to the article. Contrary to the IPCC's assessment, Lindzen said that climate models were inadequate and had not improved. Guterl wrote that despite the accepted errors in their models, e.g., treatment of clouds, modelers still thought their climate predictions were valid. Lindzen gave an estimate of the Earth's climate sensitivity of less than 1 degree Celsius. Lindzen based this estimate on how the climate had responded to volcanic eruptions. James Hansen, a climate scientist at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies estimated a climate sensitivity of 3–4 degrees Celsius. Hansen based this estimate on evidence from ice cores. According to Hansen: "Dick's idea that climate sensitivity is low is simply wrong, [...] The history of the earth proves him wrong."^[17] John Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, took the view that greenhouse gas emissions should be cut. When asked about Lindzen, Schellnhuber said "People like him are very useful in finding the weak links in our thinking."^[17]

(IMHO This is the type of discussion that can be researched and proven – one way or the other. If Lindzen is wrong, what will the cost be in terms of time lost at reducing human impact?)

He frequently speaks out against the IPCC position that significant global warming is very likely caused by humans (see global warming) although he accepts that the warming has occurred, saying global mean temperature is about 0.6 degrees Celsius higher than it was a century ago.^[11] A Spiegel article on the 2007 IPCC Working Group I report included a discussion of Lindzen's critical views on the IPCC.^[22] The writer of article Uwe Buse concluded "Lindzen's arguments sound convincing, but they are still nothing but claims, popular theories as opposed to a transparent global process [the IPCC report], a global plebiscite among climate researchers."

Lindzen was one of several scientists who appeared in The Great Global Warming Swindle, a documentary that aired in the UK in March, 2007 on Channel 4. In a critical review of the documentary, Barry Brook stated ^[23] "Amongst the selected contrarian 'experts' Durkin has rallied to his cause, there are Tim Ball and Patrick Michaels (who also happen to deny that CFCs cause damage to the ozone layer), and Fred Singer and Richard Lindzen (who, in earlier incarnations, had been active denialists of the link between passive smoking and lung cancer, despite neither having any medical expertise)."

Roy Spencer describes himself as a global warming optimist working to quantify Nature's thermostat.^[14] In several articles Spencer has espoused opinions that are skeptical of the scientific consensus on global warming.

In 2006 Spencer criticized Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth saying, "For instance, Mr. Gore claims that the Earth is now warmer than it has been in thousands of years. Yet the latest National Academies of Science (NAS) report on the subject has now admitted that all we really know is that we are warmer now than we were during the last 400 years, which is mostly made up of the 'Little Ice Age.'" ^[15] The NAS report summary (p. 3) ^[16] states:

"It can be said with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries. This statement is justified by the consistency of the evidence from a wide variety of geographically diverse proxies.

"Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period from A.D. 900 to 1600. Presently available proxy evidence indicates that temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than during any period of comparable length since A.D. 900. The uncertainties associated with reconstructing hemispheric mean or global mean temperatures from these data increase substantially backward in time through this period and are not yet fully quantified."

(IMHO Spencer here argues accepting proxy evidence, while knowing it is the only means available. To me he is a shill for the major industrial interests.)

In an interview with conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh on February 28, 2007, Spencer stated that he doesn't believe "catastrophic manmade global warming" is occurring. He also criticized climate models, saying "The people that have built the climate models that predict global warming believe they have sufficient physics in those models to predict the future. I believe they don't. I believe the climate system, the weather as it is today in the real world shows a stability that they do not yet have in those climate models."^[18] Roy Spencer is also included in a film that argues against the theory of man-made global warming called The Great Global Warming Swindle.

(IMHO No model will ever contain the complexity needed to predict all details of the weather, there will always be more variables and measurements lacking. I've done modeling for corporations. While the details have wiggle room, the big trends become more consistently visible. Spencer here is saying people lack the big picture with models, yet the big trends they predict are where they are most helpful.)

He testified before the Waxman committee's examination of political interference with climate science on March 19, 2007.^[19][20]

In 2008, Spencer published a book on climate change: Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor.^[21]

Spencer is listed as a member of the Heartland Institute and a contributor to the George C. Marshall Institute.

Christy was a lead author for the 2001 report by the IPCC^[4] and the US CCSP report Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere - Understanding and Reconciling Differences.^[5] Christy helped draft and signed the American Geophysical Union statement on climate change.^[6]

In an interview with National Public Radio about the new American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement, he said: "It is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way."^[6]

In October 2007 Christy gave a lecture at Auburn University in which he reviewed areas of the global warming debate that he deems most significant and offered his evaluation of them.^[7]

While he supports the AGU declaration and is convinced that human activities are one cause of the global warming that has been measured, Christy is "still a strong critic of scientists who make catastrophic predictions of huge increases in global temperatures and tremendous rises in sea levels."^[6]

(IMHO This is a valid opinion, and sits sa a middle ground of the controversy. No one wants to see the catastrophe arise and every reduction in human impact acts to dampen that possibility.)

Singer has been a consultant to various major corporations, including GE, Ford, GM, Exxon, Shell, Sun Oil, Lockheed Martin and IBM.^[1][9]

A 2007 Newsweek cover story on climate change denial reported that: "In April 1998 a dozen people from the denial machine — including the Marshall Institute, Fred Singer's group and Exxon — met at the American Petroleum Institute's Washington headquarters. They proposed a $5 million campaign, according to a leaked eight-page memo, to convince the public that the science of global warming is riddled with controversy and uncertainty." The plan was reportedly aimed at "raising questions about and undercutting the 'prevailing scientific wisdom'" on climate change. According to Newsweek, the plan was leaked to the press and therefore was never implemented.^[10] ABC News has reported that Singer insists he is not on the payroll of the energy industry, but admits he once received an unsolicited $10,000 from Exxon.^[11] Singer subsequently stated that his purported "connection" to ExxonMobil was more like being on their mailing list than to holding a paid position, pointing out that this single charitable donation comprised a tiny fraction (1%) of all donations received.^[12]

In 1994 Singer was the Principal Reviewer of a report authored by Kent Jeffreys titled Science, economics, and environmental policy: a critical examination which was published by the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution (AdTI), a right wing^[13] think tank of which he was a Senior Fellow.^[14] The report attacked the United States Environmental Protection Agency for their 1993 study about the cancer risks of passive smoking and called it "junk science". Singer also appeared on a tobacco industry list of people who could write op-ed pieces defending the industry's views, according to a peer-reviewed commentary by Derek Yacht and Stella Aguinaga Bialous.^[15] Writing for The Guardian, George Monbiot stated that in 1993 APCO, a public relations firm, sent a memo to Philip Morris vice-president Ellen Merlo stating: "As you know, we have been working with Singer and Dr. Dwight Lee, who have authored articles on junk science and indoor air quality (IAQ) respectively ..."^[16] Monbiot wrote that he did not have direct evidence that Singer had been paid by Philip Morris.

[nputman]

Obviously few have been following Climategate and the manipulation and disregarding of Scientific data in reference to the ??????Scientists?????? and their motives that are politically and financially motivated.

Just keep the faith and make ALGORE a few more 100 million.

Gotta go and attempyt to catch Chicken Little running about.

[sokal]

Global warming is real. The skeptics are irrational denial artists.

Or maybe not.

Listen to this interview and follow the links for an alternative opinion

http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2009/.../RIR-091201.php

or this link http://www.oism.org/pproject/

to read about the 31,000 US scientists who have signed a petition opposing the global warming theory

Edit

One last link

http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3

its fraud, complete fraud

[RickBradford]

^^

I would agree that John Christy is one of the few people somewhere need the middle of the debate, which is why he is so well worth listening to.

he has received NASA's Medal for Exceptional Achievement for figuring out how to get temperature data from satellites,

To clarify, he lead authored the 2001 IPCC report, and contributed to a later IPCC report, but later asked that his name be removed because of distortions and omissions in the final draft. IPCC refused, and Christy said he threatened to sue them unless they removed his name (IPCC denies that).

Here’s Christy’s basic argument:

* The data being used to predict catastrophic warming is suspect.

* Models generated from that data “overstate the warming” actually taking place. The earth is warming, but not that much, and it has warmed and cooled for eons.

* The Earth’s atmosphere is nowhere near as sensitive to carbon dioxide as some environmentalists believe.

* Any “solution” to perceived global warming must balance the growing worldwide demand for energy against cutting carbon dioxide output

I think reasonable people on both side of the debate could accept these views as being a basis for discussion.

The enormous problem is that the debate has become so massively polarized and shrill (flat-earthers, crimes against humanity, crooks etc etc) that the important science is no longer at centre stage, where it should be.

[thaimite]

For my part, although I do not agree that global warming has been proven let alone the fact that it is caused by our lifestyle, or that we are able to have a significant impact ofn the levels of CO2, I am all for taking care of the planet, more use of renewable energy and a reduction in the use of fossil fuels and other polluting chemicals, and toxic waste.

What I am very much against is the way 'green' issues have been hijacked by various organisations and are being used as an excuse for a massive power and money grab, which is what is happening at Copenhagen.

Edited December 12, 2009 by thaimite

[catmac]

For my part, although I do not agree that global warming has been proven let alone the fact that it is caused by our lifestyle, or that we are able to have a significant impact ofn the levels of CO2, I am all for taking care of the planet, more use of renewable energy and a reduction in the use of fossil fuels and other polluting chemicals, and toxic waste.

What I am very much against is the way 'green' issues have been hijacked by various organisations and are being used as an excuse for a massive power and money grab, which is what is happening at Copenhagen.

I think you have pretty well summed up the position of most of us skeptics on this issue, Thaimite. Of course we should do all that is sensible and reasonable to reduce pollution, recycle where needed and hopefully wean ourselves gradually away from the use of fossil fuel.

It's the fanatical zealotry of the warmers that frightens me, the only thing that would seem to satisfy them would be the total dismantling of industrialized civilization as we know it. I wonder how many of those former Marxists who also worked for the destruction of Western civilization have switched to the warmers, now that Communism has been totally discredited?

[teatree]

In a nutshell - tax and control.

Even if you believe in AGW, what are carbon tax and carbon rationing going to do except disempower the poor and empower the rich?

[Jingthing]

If you don't care, I don't care. I don't have kids. Those with kids, you really should care.

I personally think the evidence is compelling. Just watched a BBC docu showing the effects already, polar melting (dramatic and happening much faster than previously predicted), Bangladesh flooding, etc. I am not a scientist. All I can do is trust mainstream scientists on this. I think a better bet than listening to blowhards like Rush Limbaugh and "Drill Baby Drill" Sarah Palin.

And the BBC are a great source of unbiased information?

As reported in this article. long term BBC reporter Peter Sissons recently criticised the BBC policy of silencing dissenters of Global warming theories.

n a wide-ranging attack, he also claims it is now 'effectively BBC olicy' to stifle critics of the consensus view on global warming. He says: 'I believe I am one of a tiny number of BBC interviewers who have so much as raised the possibility that there is another side to the debate on climate change.

So tell me, skeptics, how do you explain the situation in the Pacific Islands that are rapidly being eaten up by rising water?

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/c...tes-421493.html

[Stumbo]

Copenhagen is a tax grab, nothing else.

That is exactly what it is. If they push this though the new billionaires will be the politicians like Al Gore and the bankers who run the trades, the whole thing is a disgusting scam and a disgrace. No doubt there were plenty of "retirement benefits" offered to those that have pushed this agenda.

Who doesn't want a better environment? Problem is this is not about that but sadly about money, greed will sink the green movement in the short term.

[RickBradford]

So tell me, skeptics, how do you explain the situation in the Pacific Islands that are rapidly being eaten up by rising water?

They aren't.

And this guy, the world's leading expoert on sea-level, has been saying it for many years.

You have Vanuatu, and also in the Pacific, north of New Zealand and Fiji— there is the island Tegua. They said they had to evacuate it, because the sea level was rising. But again, you look at the tide-gauge record: There is absolutely no signal that the sea level is rising. If anything, you could say that maybe the tide is lowering a little bit, but absolutely no rising.

And again, where do they get it from? They get it from their inspiration, their hopes, their computer models, but not from observation. Which is terrible.

Read the interview, and learn.

[heykki]

"No, the science is unsettled, acting as a cover to impose new taxes"

I cannot believe there are so many republicans on this forum to see twisted percentages like this. The governments may have failed in some parts of battling the climate change by imposing foolish taxes or supporting wrong kind of means. I do think media along with Al Gore are making it sound frightening to sell more newspapers but leading scientists do not disagree about the subject itself. 9/11, evolution vs. fundamentalists go in the same category with people who do not believe in global warming.. denialists, not sceptics.

Edited December 12, 2009 by heykki

[Jingthing]

Yes, they are:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19832557/

The 10,000 people of Tuvalu are negotiating to move to New Zealand.

Kiribati, formerly the Gilbert Islands, has lost two small islands to the ocean and is facing the possibility that their 100,000 people, too, will have to find another homeland. There is less sand and the trees are falling into the ocean.

Al Gore is rich enough. What is the bottom line motivation of the skeptics, that's what I want to know. Something is very fishy about their movement.

These islands going away is our warning sign. Will we do nothing and wait until it is too late? Already ships can negotiate their way through the polar ice easily when they could not before in human history, things are moving very rapidly. Why do you deny the obvious?

Edited December 12, 2009 by Jingthing

[lannarebirth]

It's the biggest tax grab in the history of the world and dear old Gordon Brown is leading the EU subscription with 1.5 bn GBP, the biggest donation. The Germans and the French must be laughing their socks off, Britain is virtually broke and that daft Scots git can't give it away fast enough.

Will the last person to leave the UK tell the muslims that the rent's due.

What are they afraid of when all the artificial "growth" stops? That people might turn on their leaders for having so little to show for their labors? Yeah, I think that might be it.

http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2009...mands-huge.html

[nisakiman]

"No, the science is unsettled, acting as a cover to impose new taxes"

I cannot believe there are so many republicans on this forum to see twisted percentages like this. The governments may have failed in some parts of battling the climate change by imposing foolish taxes or supporting wrong kind of means. I do think media along with Al Gore are making it sound frightening to sell more newspapers but leading scientists do not disagree about the subject itself. 9/11, evolution vs. fundamentalists go in the same category with people who do not believe in global warming.. denialists, not sceptics.

And there we have it.

Nothing to do with science. It's all about politics.

[Starlifter]

Even if scientist are right about man made climate change they don't make laws or sign treaties. The problem for me is what could be simple and convenient problem solving solutions will be mutilated by certain politicians who have an insatiable appetite for power and will sell their souls to maintain it. Follow the money and the cock roaches will come out. Unfortunately, I'm afraid like a good mafia hit those in the know will do whatever it takes to keep the truth from coming out.

Ask Al Gore if he will give 100% (or even 75%) of the profits from his new book to reduce the carbon foot print of the Hollywood film industry and see how fast he changes the subject!

[MrHammer]

I want Global Warming to actually deliver as the alarmist say, give me +10 degrees more and it may just be possible to live in Northern Europe. Unfortunately, Al Gore haven't made my country of birth hotter yet, looks like it will be a white Christmas this year. Several years since that happened.

Global Warming/Climate Change is just another globalist ruse to impose taxes and limit freedoms, just like Global Terrorism, just the kind of thing I left the West to escape.

[MrHammer]

Global Warming = New Religion.

Its a faith based science, one very similar to Alchemy, everyone thought that was on the ball too long ago.

I want them to impose taxes and regulations galore on THE NEWS MEDIA as they are the only fools believing this hook line and sinker.

ITS A THEORY not A FACT!

Theories are not a good basis for taxes.

Feel free to repeat that too yourself in 30 years when Bangkok is fighting back rising ocean levels, that are threatening to engulf the city.

Feel free to repeat that in 30 years when Lizard people rules the world and Swansea has won the Champions League.

See what I did there?

[whichschool]

I personally think the evidence is compelling. Just watched a BBC docu showing the effects already

Was it the one where the BBC went to those temples in Cambodia (not Angkor Wat) and insinuated climate change for the destruction of 13th century Khmer society, im sure itll be on again over the next few days, others on here must have watched it if you can bare to watch that vile channel for long enough.

Those pesky 13th century Khmer jetsetters driving their 4x4's really fcuked things up for the planet, oh how the BBC has no credibility anymore.

I dont know if its true or not but when they spoon feed me crap like this i have to believe its a lie.

[Orac]

"No, the science is unsettled, acting as a cover to impose new taxes"

I cannot believe there are so many republicans on this forum to see twisted percentages like this. The governments may have failed in some parts of battling the climate change by imposing foolish taxes or supporting wrong kind of means. I do think media along with Al Gore are making it sound frightening to sell more newspapers but leading scientists do not disagree about the subject itself. 9/11, evolution vs. fundamentalists go in the same category with people who do not believe in global warming.. denialists, not sceptics.

And there we have it.

Nothing to do with science. It's all about politics.

I thought he was using that often used thai political argument that if you don't believe in climate change you do not support the monarcy - either that or we are all being accused of being American

[BangkokJazz]

While I do believe that the Climate is being influenced by man, in a negative way, I know that the politicians of the world are incapable of doing anything to affect meaningful change, before a catastophic event occurs. It will take a major city being threaten, before the world will act. It is sad, but it is reality. You put a frog in a pot of water and increase the temperture slowly, he sits and boils to death, because he is not aware of the rising temp until its too late. Drop him in a pot of boiling water, and he hops out immediately. So it is with people as a group.

[WaiWai]

Regardless of your views, I think you'll applaud the following story:

Schoolboy's idea considered at climate talks

Posted Sat Dec 12, 2009 10:12pm AEDT

Officials at the United Nations climate change conference taking place in Copenhagen are to discuss an energy-saving device designed by a 15-year-old British schoolboy.

Robert Appleton won a competition with his system which powers street lights using energy generated when cars drive over speed bumps.

"Our system works as the car comes over, it'll push down the bump, which will push down hydraulic pistons, which will turn a generator," he said.

"And then with this energy stored it can be fed back into the grid to power streetlights and other amenities."

He believes that one car could produce enough energy to power a light for around nine hours.

The Danish Prime Minister will examine the design later today.

(ABC News)

[Orac]

While I do believe that the Climate is being influenced by man, in a negative way, I know that the politicians of the world are incapable of doing anything to affect meaningful change, before a catastophic event occurs. It will take a major city being threaten, before the world will act. It is sad, but it is reality. You put a frog in a pot of water and increase the temperture slowly, he sits and boils to death, because he is not aware of the rising temp until its too late. Drop him in a pot of boiling water, and he hops out immediately. So it is with people as a group.

To be honest I don't think even that woud do it - many blame climate change on what happenned to New Orleans.

If the problem truly exist to the extent some would have you believe, then the changes that needed to be made to global society would need to be severe and substantial to the point of being a fundemental change to life as we know it. Such measures as global governance and law which would need supercede national laws and priorities and an effective measure of policing such a change would need to be put in place so that a reduction in emissions, consumption and population can be managed down. I do not think this is a case of the consequences of us facing up to the fact of global warming are too harsh to contemplate and therefore we need to bury our heads in the sand, it is just that I would like the science to be a bit more convincing and overwhelming than it is before such draconian sacrifices need to be made.

[thaimite]

Regardless of your views, I think you'll applaud the following story:

Schoolboy's idea considered at climate talks

Posted Sat Dec 12, 2009 10:12pm AEDT

Officials at the United Nations climate change conference taking place in Copenhagen are to discuss an energy-saving device designed by a 15-year-old British schoolboy.

Robert Appleton won a competition with his system which powers street lights using energy generated when cars drive over speed bumps.

"Our system works as the car comes over, it'll push down the bump, which will push down hydraulic pistons, which will turn a generator," he said.

"And then with this energy stored it can be fed back into the grid to power streetlights and other amenities."

He believes that one car could produce enough energy to power a light for around nine hours.

The Danish Prime Minister will examine the design later today.

(ABC News)

A great idea, but not new. They are already available and being tested in London See this article for more information. It also mentions a night club in Rotterdam which supplements its power by energy obtained from the people dancing on the dance floor.

Similar work is also underway in the US. I suspect the 'Schoolboy' idea is just a marketing gimmick.

I have often thought about putting such a device on the road outside my house (route 24) but have not yet found the right person to pay the necessary 'tea money' to

[WaiWai]

Fair enough, thaimaite, but I think the general point about rethinking our ways holds true.