UN: delegates set to sign historic climate change deal

[up2u2]

I'm not surprised at your closed door / closed eyes attitude.

I'm not surprised that you haven't read a word I posted.

If you had, you would have known that I am arguing for open doors to all opinions on the matter, "vigorous and on-going" discussions, indeed, and arguing against the closed door that is the stated goal of the climate establishment.

Discussions don't work properly if it is decided on the only acceptable answer, before the discussion starts.

It wouldn't matter what solutions were put forward by the scientific community through out the entire world you would find a blog site to provide misinformation on it. You are totally ignorant of the science and the solutions choosing only to research the Fossil Fuel funded Climate Denier blog-o-sphere sites RB.

There are a number of technologies in the mix to address GW / CC and the world is simply moving on at lightspeed from Climate Denial and you are being left in its wake.

Which Fossil Fuel funded Climate Denier blog site did you get the cherry picked information on biofuels?

[up2u2]

A balanced article on biofuels in The Conversation is a good place to start.

By:

Emeritus Professor Douglas Crawford-Brown

Director, Cambridge Centre for Climate Change Mitigation Research (4CMR), University of Cambridge

Rather than just the one sided negative Climate Denier guff a balanced educated presentation of the advantages and disadvantages of biofuels.

"IPCC report: biofuels alone are unsustainable, but can still help combat climate change"

http://theconversation.com/ipcc-report-biofuels-alone-are-unsustainable-but-can-still-help-combat-climate-change-25046

[eliotness]

Sure about what ? No nuclear life cycle analysis ! Absolutely, too much of a political hot potato.

Let me help you out then.

'Life Cycle Analysis' CO₂ emissions comparison Nuclear Power Station vs Coal Fired Power Station:

Mean over the life of each technology including construction

Coal - 888 tonnes CO₂e/GWh

Nuclear - 29 tonnes CO₂e/GWh

You so so miss my point, which shows your blinkered view. The whole point of life cycle analysis is to show not just the daily operational emissions but rather to consider the start-up, the construction, the operation and the close down of an activity. This appears by your comment to be something beyond your understanding. OK keep on living on your silly little world, keep on wearing your brown shirt designed by Hugo Boss, don't drink the coffee,and think the politicians are all really nice guys to be trusted.

In a Life Cycle Analysis that is all included. Seemed in your world comparative life cycle analysis had not been done. In my 'silly little world' I knew darn well they had been done. Hundreds of them and I had actually looked at them years ago. The particular numbers I quoted were actually from a report that studied 10-17 full life cycle analysis of each power producing sector and compared Mean / Low and High outputs.

Hugo Boss? I don't think so mate a little last year for me. Hugo went in the dustbin. Currently Gant is my label of choice.

Coffee? Excuse me. Freshly ground (without burning the grind) Espresso if you don't mind. I wouldn't feed 'coffee' to a pig. Especially that American percolated muck. Coffee INDEED!!!! outrageous!!!

Again my friend you so so missed my points. OK up 2 you, live in your world, but please don't try and impose your beliefs on everyone else.

[JDGRUEN]

"UN: delegates set to sign historic climate change deal"

Of course - in the entire history of Earth there has never been a period of time without Climate Change... But what do facts matter... ?

[JDGRUEN]

Climate Change is a Natural Occurrence. it has been since the history of time began on Earth. Natural Occurrence Deniers - NODs cannot deal with this fact and make up fantastical stories to use as proof - all in an effort to control people.

[boomerangutang]

Oh please, not that tired old argument again. Of course climate has been changing on Earth for eons. Climate changes hour to hour. That's not the issue. I'm annoyed at whomever came up with the term "climate change" because it gives ammunition to primitive thinkers to say things like, "what's the big deal? Climate has always changed and always will."

I'm ok with the older term; "Global Warming." And yes, there have been warming trends in past epochs. But what counts most in the discussion is the near term. Yes, because we are the dominant species on Earth. Our species have commandeered everywhere possible: from the driest deserts, to houseboat communities, to polar regions, to name a few. About half those 7 billion people are vulnerable to climate changes. Many are vulnerable to increased desertification, to rising sea levels, to ever-more-severe storms, forest fires, bad air, toxic water, saltification of water, . Much of those things have happened in earlier times for Mankind, but the changes scientists are measuring now are at a quick pace and more profound. These are problems which would not be so dire if it were not for peoples' activities, overpopulation and burning of fossil fuels. There's much more to the issue. That's just it in a nutshell.

Whomever doesn't want to see it, won't see it. It's like Trump fans: no matter how many proofs of what a lousy character he is, there will always be a minority who think he's great.

[ilostmypassword]

"UN: delegates set to sign historic climate change deal"

Of course - in the entire history of Earth there has never been a period of time without Climate Change... But what do facts matter... ?

Significant facts matter more than silly word games.

[arjunadawn]

Oh please, not that tired old argument again. Of course climate has been changing on Earth for eons. Climate changes hour to hour. That's not the issue. I'm annoyed at whomever came up with the term "climate change" because it gives ammunition to primitive thinkers to say things like, "what's the big deal? Climate has always changed and always will."

I'm ok with the older term; "Global Warming." And yes, there have been warming trends in past epochs. But what counts most in the discussion is the near term. Yes, because we are the dominant species on Earth. Our species have commandeered everywhere possible: from the driest deserts, to houseboat communities, to polar regions, to name a few. About half those 7 billion people are vulnerable to climate changes. Many are vulnerable to increased desertification, to rising sea levels, to ever-more-severe storms, forest fires, bad air, toxic water, saltification of water, . Much of those things have happened in earlier times for Mankind, but the changes scientists are measuring now are at a quick pace and more profound. These are problems which would not be so dire if it were not for peoples' activities, overpopulation and burning of fossil fuels. There's much more to the issue. That's just it in a nutshell.

Whomever doesn't want to see it, won't see it. It's like Trump fans: no matter how many proofs of what a lousy character he is, there will always be a minority who think he's great.

Since the fulcrum of the above post posits there have been other changes, but not as abrupt as what we are [seeing] now, one example otherwise disproves it.

Geology and statigraphy are full of examples of traumatic and abrupt changes to the climate. In many cases there is thousands of examples of animals being frozen while they ate lunch (and geologically recently)! So, a more profound and quicker paced example of this is unlikely. (There are also further examples, at varying times).

Its unclear a minority think the false association with the ideology of climate change, Trump, is great. Its pretty clear with the information available, its not a minority.

[up2u2]

"UN: delegates set to sign historic climate change deal"

Of course - in the entire history of Earth there has never been a period of time without Climate Change... But what do facts matter... ?

Climate Change is a Natural Occurrence. it has been since the history of time began on Earth. Natural Occurrence Deniers - NODs cannot deal with this fact and make up fantastical stories to use as proof - all in an effort to control people.

This old chestnut.

How do you know Climates Changed in the past since time began? That would be peer reviewed scientific research and evidence. The very same peer reviewed scientific research and evidence that is demonstrating and warning you of GW / CC today.

It is a pretty stupid argument.

[up2u2]

Oh please, not that tired old argument again. Of course climate has been changing on Earth for eons. Climate changes hour to hour. That's not the issue. I'm annoyed at whomever came up with the term "climate change" because it gives ammunition to primitive thinkers to say things like, "what's the big deal? Climate has always changed and always will."

I'm ok with the older term; "Global Warming." And yes, there have been warming trends in past epochs. But what counts most in the discussion is the near term. Yes, because we are the dominant species on Earth. Our species have commandeered everywhere possible: from the driest deserts, to houseboat communities, to polar regions, to name a few. About half those 7 billion people are vulnerable to climate changes. Many are vulnerable to increased desertification, to rising sea levels, to ever-more-severe storms, forest fires, bad air, toxic water, saltification of water, . Much of those things have happened in earlier times for Mankind, but the changes scientists are measuring now are at a quick pace and more profound. These are problems which would not be so dire if it were not for peoples' activities, overpopulation and burning of fossil fuels. There's much more to the issue. That's just it in a nutshell.

Whomever doesn't want to see it, won't see it. It's like Trump fans: no matter how many proofs of what a lousy character he is, there will always be a minority who think he's great.

Since the fulcrum of the above post posits there have been other changes, but not as abrupt as what we are [seeing] now, one example otherwise disproves it.

Geology and statigraphy are full of examples of traumatic and abrupt changes to the climate. In many cases there is thousands of examples of animals being frozen while they ate lunch (and geologically recently)! So, a more profound and quicker paced example of this is unlikely. (There are also further examples, at varying times).

Its unclear a minority think the false association with the ideology of climate change, Trump, is great. Its pretty clear with the information available, its not a minority.

GW / CC is not occurring because animals froze to death while they were eating?

What on Earth are you talking about?

[boomerangutang]

Oh please, not that tired old argument again. Of course climate has been changing on Earth for eons. Climate changes hour to hour. That's not the issue. I'm annoyed at whomever came up with the term "climate change" because it gives ammunition to primitive thinkers to say things like, "what's the big deal? Climate has always changed and always will."

I'm ok with the older term; "Global Warming." And yes, there have been warming trends in past epochs. But what counts most in the discussion is the near term. Yes, because we are the dominant species on Earth. Our species have commandeered everywhere possible: from the driest deserts, to houseboat communities, to polar regions, to name a few. About half those 7 billion people are vulnerable to climate changes. Many are vulnerable to increased desertification, to rising sea levels, to ever-more-severe storms, forest fires, bad air, toxic water, saltification of water, . Much of those things have happened in earlier times for Mankind, but the changes scientists are measuring now are at a quick pace and more profound. These are problems which would not be so dire if it were not for peoples' activities, overpopulation and burning of fossil fuels. There's much more to the issue. That's just it in a nutshell.

Whomever doesn't want to see it, won't see it. It's like Trump fans: no matter how many proofs of what a lousy character he is, there will always be a minority who think he's great.

Since the fulcrum of the above post posits there have been other changes, but not as abrupt as what we are [seeing] now, one example otherwise disproves it.

Geology and statigraphy are full of examples of traumatic and abrupt changes to the climate. In many cases there is thousands of examples of animals being frozen while they ate lunch (and geologically recently)! So, a more profound and quicker paced example of this is unlikely. (There are also further examples, at varying times).

Its unclear a minority think the false association with the ideology of climate change, Trump, is great. Its pretty clear with the information available, its not a minority.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear in my earlier post - I'll try again: GW matters because it's about people and happening now. People are everywhere. They're even residing on rickety little boats upon bodies of water. They're huddled on steaming landfills as big as small volcanoes. They're camped in the open next to barbed wire fences in SE Europe. Can we at least agree there's chronic overpopulation?

We're not talking about Pre-Cambrian times, we're talking about now. Our species. When the seas rise an inch, it affects millions of people in dire ways. An inch doesn't seem like much, but trust me on this, with the affect of high tides and storm surges and runoff from land coming the other way - one inch is a very big deal.

We're not talking about the people who post on Thai Visa. With few exceptions, we're living comfortable lives and can move to higher ground or buy another Air-Con unit if need be. We're talking about the tens of millions of disadvantaged people who don't have 30 baht in their pockets. The vulnerable.

Personally, I wouldn't mind if the conversation was focused just as much on other species as on humans - but I know when people get together in conferences about climate, they're 95% concerned about our one species.

Besides sea level rises, there is also dire desertification - which (along with lack of fresh water) will prove more detrimental on human populations. Both those things: (sea level rises and desertification) build up subtly, so they aren't as noticeable as earthquakes or volcano eruptions - so thick-headed people don't give them much credence. Yet, the dire results of sea level rise and desertification can result in human suffering just as severe as earthquakes or volcanoes.

[eliotness]

Millions of people have been forced to live on marginal land because of the ever increasing human population. Even in countries like Britain housing estates have been built on flood-plains because of the shortage of land for building houses. In the third world this effect is vastly increased, putting them at risk even if the sea levels rise just a few inches. Forests have been cut down, water supplies diminished, land made barren by overgrazing, land made toxic by industrial waste. Man has in the past had a marked effect on the planet. I don't think anyone can deny that.

With the ever increasing human population any changes in climate will have a profound effect. OK. In the past 10 thousand years humans have adapted to different climates and changes therein. But they had space and time to adapt. With the human population expected to be over 12 billion by 2100 we have neither the time or the space to adapt. The birth-rate is unsustainable, pure and simple and to cloud the issue with things like man-made global warming is hypocrisy.

So the politicians think by signing a document and raising taxes they will solve one of the (possible) effects of human activity. If anyone believes that then they live in nice soft pink dream world. With 12 billion people it ain't going to happen PERIOD !

[up2u2]

Millions of people have been forced to live on marginal land because of the ever increasing human population. Even in countries like Britain housing estates have been built on flood-plains because of the shortage of land for building houses. In the third world this effect is vastly increased, putting them at risk even if the sea levels rise just a few inches. Forests have been cut down, water supplies diminished, land made barren by overgrazing, land made toxic by industrial waste. Man has in the past had a marked effect on the planet. I don't think anyone can deny that.

With the ever increasing human population any changes in climate will have a profound effect. OK. In the past 10 thousand years humans have adapted to different climates and changes therein. But they had space and time to adapt. With the human population expected to be over 12 billion by 2100 we have neither the time or the space to adapt. The birth-rate is unsustainable, pure and simple and to cloud the issue with things like man-made global warming is hypocrisy.

So the politicians think by signing a document and raising taxes they will solve one of the (possible) effects of human activity. If anyone believes that then they live in nice soft pink dream world. With 12 billion people it ain't going to happen PERIOD !

Problem solved sit back and do nothing. Brilliant.

[eliotness]

Millions of people have been forced to live on marginal land because of the ever increasing human population. Even in countries like Britain housing estates have been built on flood-plains because of the shortage of land for building houses. In the third world this effect is vastly increased, putting them at risk even if the sea levels rise just a few inches. Forests have been cut down, water supplies diminished, land made barren by overgrazing, land made toxic by industrial waste. Man has in the past had a marked effect on the planet. I don't think anyone can deny that.

With the ever increasing human population any changes in climate will have a profound effect. OK. In the past 10 thousand years humans have adapted to different climates and changes therein. But they had space and time to adapt. With the human population expected to be over 12 billion by 2100 we have neither the time or the space to adapt. The birth-rate is unsustainable, pure and simple and to cloud the issue with things like man-made global warming is hypocrisy.

So the politicians think by signing a document and raising taxes they will solve one of the (possible) effects of human activity. If anyone believes that then they live in nice soft pink dream world. With 12 billion people it ain't going to happen PERIOD !

Problem solved sit back and do nothing. Brilliant.

Dear up2u2, sit back and do nothing is not what I said. Man is adaptable, technologies will be developed, but we need time. The uncontrolled explosion in the human population since WW2 is not giving us that breathing space. Unless all politicians and especially Religious Leaders realise that fact then the conflicts and mass migrations we have at present will increase exponentially during the next few decades, such that any change in the climate will seem trivial.

That is the elephant in the room.

[RickBradford]

To restate the point that Alarmists seem scared to acknowledge in any shape or form.

If you believe that a 2C rise in temperature would cause planetary disaster, and if you believe that the "historic" climate change agreement may prevent that, now is the time to start gnashing your teeth and renting your clothes (and I don't mean hiring a dinner suit).

Because the climate deal is busted anyway. No need to take my word for it, listen to the president of the World Bank wailing about the drive for coal going on in China, India, Indonesia, and Vietnam.

The World Bank president, Jim Yong Kim, noted that countries in south and south-east Asia were on track to build hundreds more coal-fired power plants in the next 20 years – despite promises made at Paris to cut greenhouse gas emissions and pivot to a clean energy future.

“If Vietnam goes forward with 40GW of coal, if the entire region implements the coal-based plans right now, I think we are finished,” Kim said at the recent Climate Action Summit. “That would spell disaster for us and our planet.”

Oh noes! Looks like all those things predicted by climate science -- hot weather, cold weather, wet weather, dry weather -- are going to come true.

[up2u2]

To restate the point that Alarmists seem scared to acknowledge in any shape or form.

If you believe that a 2C rise in temperature would cause planetary disaster, and if you believe that the "historic" climate change agreement may prevent that, now is the time to start gnashing your teeth and renting your clothes (and I don't mean hiring a dinner suit).

Because the climate deal is busted anyway. No need to take my word for it, listen to the president of the World Bank wailing about the drive for coal going on in China, India, Indonesia, and Vietnam.

The World Bank president, Jim Yong Kim, noted that countries in south and south-east Asia were on track to build hundreds more coal-fired power plants in the next 20 years – despite promises made at Paris to cut greenhouse gas emissions and pivot to a clean energy future.

“If Vietnam goes forward with 40GW of coal, if the entire region implements the coal-based plans right now, I think we are finished,” Kim said at the recent Climate Action Summit. “That would spell disaster for us and our planet.”

Oh noes! Looks like all those things predicted by climate science -- hot weather, cold weather, wet weather, dry weather -- are going to come true.

No +2^Oc in Global Temperatures will not cause planetary disaster. Who told you that?

This is exactly what the Paris Agreement is all about. Putting pressure on Nations to make good decisions. Kim makes a good point in Washington and commits nearly 30% of the World Bank budget to Climate Change projects. As Ban Ki-Moon states the rush is on to get the agreement enforced before Obama leaves office in case an idiot like Trump who is a Climate Denier becomes President.

Are you going to lose your mind every time a coal fired power station is built?

Thanks for the Fossil Fuel funded Climate Denier blog-o-sphere update. Anthony Watts again?

[RickBradford]

No +2^Oc in Global Temperatures will not cause planetary disaster. Who told you that?

I don't propose to do simple research for you, but if you Google the phrase "disaster 2c climate" you will get a start. Just the first page should be enough for you. And if you can't accept that, then you are, in the truest sense, a "denier".

This is exactly what the Paris Agreement is all about. Putting pressure on Nations to make good decisions.

You appear to know nothing about the Paris Agreement at all. All the countries supplied their own plans (known as INDCs) in advance, with the express condition that they were not negotiable. By the binding process of the Paris Agreement, nobody has the ability to pressure any nations in any way on climate

[up2u2]

No +2^Oc in Global Temperatures will not cause planetary disaster. Who told you that?

I don't propose to do simple research for you, but if you Google the phrase "disaster 2c climate" you will get a start. Just the first page should be enough for you. And if you can't accept that, then you are, in the truest sense, a "denier".

This is exactly what the Paris Agreement is all about. Putting pressure on Nations to make good decisions.

You appear to know nothing about the Paris Agreement at all. All the countries supplied their own plans (known as INDCs) in advance, with the express condition that they were not negotiable. By the binding process of the Paris Agreement, nobody has the ability to pressure any nations in any way on climate

The Planet can heat up +20^Oc. Earth will go on. It will still be a Planet. Humans wont be living on it though. +2^Oc for humans is not good but manageable. +6^Oc Humans are on their way to extinction. That is considered the Methane tipping point. Way to hot for humans to survive long term. The Planet doesn't really care how hot it gets. The current aim is +2^Oc hopefully maybe +1.5^Oc' Pity we have wasted 20 years we could be way down the path by now. You don't care anyway. For you it's all a big joke. Just a stupid game you enjoy playing.

Paris agreements are tabled in November

[RickBradford]

+2^Oc for humans is not good but manageable.

Well, perhaps you should offer this piece of wisdom to the multitude of politicians, bureaucrats, international bodies, journalists, NGOs, activists, and even some scientists, who have been relentlessly telling us for years that a 2C temperature rise is the point beyond which "risks catastrophe for life on earth", and demanding, as usual, trillions of dollars of somebody else's money to fix it.

[up2u2]

+2^Oc for humans is not good but manageable.

Well, perhaps you should offer this piece of wisdom to the multitude of politicians, bureaucrats, international bodies, journalists, NGOs, activists, and even some scientists, who have been relentlessly telling us for years that a 2C temperature rise is the point beyond which "risks catastrophe for life on earth", and demanding, as usual, trillions of dollars of somebody else's money to fix it.

Don't have to they already know. I think you got your numbers mixed up. The Paris Agreement is to limit GW to +2^Oc with an attempt if we get lucky +1.5Oc.

[RickBradford]

Don't have to they already know. I think you got your numbers mixed up. The Paris Agreement is to limit GW to +2^Oc with an attempt if we get lucky +1.5Oc.

You miss the point with ridiculous, if characteristic, ease.

Most of the climate alarmists suggest that a 2C rise risks catastrophe for life on earth (or some such similar apocalyptic phrase). They think a 2C rise is not manageable. It is, to use their own phrase, a tipping point beyond which we must not go. You, on the other hand, with your special knowledge, state that it is manageable.

Perhaps if you could persuade the UN of your superior grasp of events, they will dial back their activities of p**sing away hundreds of billions of dollars a year on this "manageable" problem.

You could write Ban-Ki Moon, Leonardo di Caprio, the Pope, Bob Geldof, Prince Charles and Weepy Bill McKibben, who have been clinging to this mistaken belief that we're headed for disaster at 2 degrees. They'll be so pleased you wrote to set their minds at rest.

[eliotness]

Rick, have you noticed how up2u2 ignores the points he can't give an educated reply to, but just keeps on about global warming, quoting things that are in partisan sites on the internet. I suspect he is a student doing a PhD on climate change and has locked into this site. Because of this I think we are wasting our time trying to debate whether the signing of the document in the UN will make a difference. Therefore I will make no further comments to his rants and I suggest maybe you should do likewise, but up to you !

[RickBradford]

^^^

I very much doubt he is in a position to be doing a PhD on anything, though I'm sure he would thank you for the implied compliment. You are certainly right that it is the tendency of the Green/Left to argue in the manner of elevator music -- repetitive, dull and free from originality, but impossible to directly address.

It is still worth discussing the "historic" climate change agreement. It's an agreement which "political Green" sees as a great triumph, but real environmentalists have rightly panned as a sham. Where's the mandate for addressing dangerous climate change, if you give a free pass to China, India, Indonesia, Russia, and Brazil?

So there is a strange coalition of climate skeptics and extreme Greens, who both see the Paris agreement as a vast crock of s**t, versus wide-eyed nitwits who think all will be well if we give our lives over to unelected and unaccountable UN bureaucrats.

[boomerangutang]

Millions of people have been forced to live on marginal land because of the ever increasing human population. Even in countries like Britain housing estates have been built on flood-plains because of the shortage of land for building houses. In the third world this effect is vastly increased, putting them at risk even if the sea levels rise just a few inches. Forests have been cut down, water supplies diminished, land made barren by overgrazing, land made toxic by industrial waste. Man has in the past had a marked effect on the planet. I don't think anyone can deny that.

With the ever increasing human population any changes in climate will have a profound effect. OK. In the past 10 thousand years humans have adapted to different climates and changes therein. But they had space and time to adapt. With the human population expected to be over 12 billion by 2100 we have neither the time or the space to adapt. The birth-rate is unsustainable, pure and simple and to cloud the issue with things like man-made global warming is hypocrisy.

So the politicians think by signing a document and raising taxes they will solve one of the (possible) effects of human activity. If anyone believes that then they live in nice soft pink dream world. With 12 billion people it ain't going to happen PERIOD !

You were on the right track until your closing sentences. Sure there will be some wasted spending. When has a government anywhere in the world done anything without wasted spending? If you want to list wasted and stupid spending by governments, it will be a very long list, and spending to clean the environment won't be near the top.

There's no doubt human population explosion is the #1 problem facing the planet. International deals are an indirect way to try and deal with the adverse affects of that. No politician can dare say that overpopulation is the greatest threat. Maybe in 20 or 30 years, but it's too much of a hot potato to say so now, in plain language.

Any agreement (on anything) by world countries is an achievement, particularly getting China on board, because Chinese (and Russians) usually try to counter western initiatives. The agreements with China and India are far from ideal, but something is better than nothing. If you want to create a vegetable garden by your house, you might start by taking out weeds and then tilling the soil. Doing those things alone will not grow veges, but it's a start, and it's better than doing nothing at all.

I can't help but think some of the posters who are so adamantly against agreements, are themselves involved with fossil fuel biz in some way. 'fess up guys. It would clear things up to why some of you are so fully fixated on being contrary to any improvements to lessening fossil fuel emissions.

[RickBradford]

I can't help but think some of the posters who are so adamantly against agreements, are themselves involved with fossil fuel biz in some way. 'fess up guys. It would clear things up to why some of you are so fully fixated on being contrary to any improvements to lessening fossil fuel emissions.

If I thought that:

a ) this agreement would do anything to lessen fossil fuel emissions (rather than allow continuing increases in the major developing markets) and;

b ) lessening emissions is a good thing, compared to the deleterious economic and social effects worldwide of a rush away from fossil fuels.

... then I would support it.

But it won't, and it isn't.

[eliotness]

Millions of people have been forced to live on marginal land because of the ever increasing human population. Even in countries like Britain housing estates have been built on flood-plains because of the shortage of land for building houses. In the third world this effect is vastly increased, putting them at risk even if the sea levels rise just a few inches. Forests have been cut down, water supplies diminished, land made barren by overgrazing, land made toxic by industrial waste. Man has in the past had a marked effect on the planet. I don't think anyone can deny that.

With the ever increasing human population any changes in climate will have a profound effect. OK. In the past 10 thousand years humans have adapted to different climates and changes therein. But they had space and time to adapt. With the human population expected to be over 12 billion by 2100 we have neither the time or the space to adapt. The birth-rate is unsustainable, pure and simple and to cloud the issue with things like man-made global warming is hypocrisy.

So the politicians think by signing a document and raising taxes they will solve one of the (possible) effects of human activity. If anyone believes that then they live in nice soft pink dream world. With 12 billion people it ain't going to happen PERIOD !

You were on the right track until your closing sentences. Sure there will be some wasted spending. When has a government anywhere in the world done anything without wasted spending? If you want to list wasted and stupid spending by governments, it will be a very long list, and spending to clean the environment won't be near the top.

There's no doubt human population explosion is the #1 problem facing the planet. International deals are an indirect way to try and deal with the adverse affects of that. No politician can dare say that overpopulation is the greatest threat. Maybe in 20 or 30 years, but it's too much of a hot potato to say so now, in plain language.

Any agreement (on anything) by world countries is an achievement, particularly getting China on board, because Chinese (and Russians) usually try to counter western initiatives. The agreements with China and India are far from ideal, but something is better than nothing. If you want to create a vegetable garden by your house, you might start by taking out weeds and then tilling the soil. Doing those things alone will not grow veges, but it's a start, and it's better than doing nothing at all.

I can't help but think some of the posters who are so adamantly against agreements, are themselves involved with fossil fuel biz in some way. 'fess up guys. It would clear things up to why some of you are so fully fixated on being contrary to any improvements to lessening fossil fuel emissions.

If I thought all the money raised on fossil fuel and other green taxes was going to be spent on worthwhile environmental projects, then I would support the politicians on this UN deal. Most politicians just see this as "a milk cow" and a great way to raise more taxes from the general public. Most politicians are in the pockets of the big multinationals, which includes the fossil fuel industries, so your anger should be directed at them and not the scientists who dare to question the "new religion".

[up2u2]

Don't have to they already know. I think you got your numbers mixed up. The Paris Agreement is to limit GW to +2^Oc with an attempt if we get lucky +1.5Oc.

You miss the point with ridiculous, if characteristic, ease.

Most of the climate alarmists suggest that a 2C rise risks catastrophe for life on earth (or some such similar apocalyptic phrase). They think a 2C rise is not manageable. It is, to use their own phrase, a tipping point beyond which we must not go. You, on the other hand, with your special knowledge, state that it is manageable.

Perhaps if you could persuade the UN of your superior grasp of events, they will dial back their activities of p**sing away hundreds of billions of dollars a year on this "manageable" problem.

You could write Ban-Ki Moon, Leonardo di Caprio, the Pope, Bob Geldof, Prince Charles and Weepy Bill McKibben, who have been clinging to this mistaken belief that we're headed for disaster at 2 degrees. They'll be so pleased you wrote to set their minds at rest.

Not correct. +2^Oc is not catastrophic, not good and a lot of fallout to be managed. +6^Oc is catastrophic that is where the polar caps melt completely oceans become too non alkaline and overheated and Arctic Methane slurries evaporate into the atmosphere. Not catastrophic for earth it still keeps spinning just no living creatures on it. Too hot for them to survive. You read too much misinformation on Climate Denier websites.

[up2u2]

If I thought all the money raised on fossil fuel and other green taxes was going to be spent on worthwhile environmental projects, then I would support the politicians on this UN deal. Most politicians just see this as "a milk cow" and a great way to raise more taxes from the general public. Most politicians are in the pockets of the big multinationals, which includes the fossil fuel industries, so your anger should be directed at them and not the scientists who dare to question the "new religion".

You and I both know this isn't true. You are 100% committed to Climate Denial and no amount of evidence or solutions to the issue is ever going to be supported by you.

The world has moved on, on this issue and you are left to please yourself.

The world is full of people past and present who simply got it wrong, backed the wrong horse and ended up on the wrong side of history.

[up2u2]

Rick, have you noticed how up2u2 ignores the points he can't give an educated reply to, but just keeps on about global warming, quoting things that are in partisan sites on the internet. I suspect he is a student doing a PhD on climate change and has locked into this site. Because of this I think we are wasting our time trying to debate whether the signing of the document in the UN will make a difference. Therefore I will make no further comments to his rants and I suggest maybe you should do likewise, but up to you !

I must confess some points I do ignore. They get a little too foolish for me to respond too. My view on GW / CC is supported by 99.996% of the scientific community. 0.004% of the scientific community agrees with yours and the view of the Fossil Fuel funded Climate Denier blog-o-sphere.

[eliotness]

Rick, have you noticed how up2u2 ignores the points he can't give an educated reply to, but just keeps on about global warming, quoting things that are in partisan sites on the internet. I suspect he is a student doing a PhD on climate change and has locked into this site. Because of this I think we are wasting our time trying to debate whether the signing of the document in the UN will make a difference. Therefore I will make no further comments to his rants and I suggest maybe you should do likewise, but up to you !

I must confess some points I do ignore. They get a little too foolish for me to respond too. My view on GW / CC is supported by 99.996% of the scientific community. 0.004% of the scientific community agrees with yours and the view of the Fossil Fuel funded Climate Denier blog-o-sphere.

???? live your dream, ignorance is bliss. As one of the 0.004% I say your distortion of facts, your use of half truths, your use of insults, makes you a zealot for the new religion. Reasonable debate is beyond your mindset. OK up2u.