What can we expect from Copenhagen?

[stethoscope]

Sounds like Obama has stayed in Copenhagen most of the evening to try and rescue something out of this, and something at least has been agreed:

'Meaningful deal' reached at Copenhagen climate summit
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/8421880.stm

The whole summit has been bloody dissapointing though, given the expectation

 

[Barking_Mad]

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Interesting article here from the Beeb suggesting that far-right zanies whoring for big oil in Congress are convinced that they can prevent any legislation that would allow Obama from promising US emission cuts from going through.

Senator James Inhofe from Oklahoma has long believed man-made climate change is what he calls "a Hollywood hoax" perpetuated by a liberal elite.

He's going to Copenhagen to tell them the president can't deliver on his promise to cut greenhouse gases by 17% by 2020. He told me of the plan:

"It's dead. In the Senate it's dead. Let me restate that so that nobody has any misunderstanding, there are two pieces of legislation, one is the Waxman-Markey bill from the House, the other is the Kerry-Boxer bill. Both are dead. They will not pass the United States Senate. The closer you get to the (Midterm) election, the further away from this thing they'll want to get because the American people understand this issue now."

It has been widely argued that the president has a big stick in his back pocket: the Environmental Protection Agency recently confirmed that greenhouse gases were a pollutant.

So they could simply issue an edict to make the cuts.

The senator says the recent kerfuffle over e-mails between climate change scientists has cut off that route.

"The Obama administration-appointed Director of EPA Lisa Jackson has emphasised and stated that the science on which the endangerment finding is based is the International Panel on Climate Change science which has been debunked. So the courts would look at that, and I would think, throw it out. If they don't, it would be tied up in the courts for years anyway."

You'll note the critical role played by recent oil company PR dirty tricks campaigns in his thinking.

 

[weltweit]

Sounds like Obama has stayed in Copenhagen most of the evening to try and rescue something out of this, and something at least has been agreed:

'Meaningful deal' reached at Copenhagen climate summit
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/8421880.stm

The US, China, India and South Africa had agreed the "historic step forward", a US official reported.

So where was Gordon Brown and the UK?

 

[Barking_Mad]

So where was Gordon Brown and the UK?

Well...

Standing with reporters when the news broke, the UK prime minister's official spokesman was surprised by the timing of Clinton's announcement, despite the fact that one of Gordon Brown's chief negotiators, Jon Cunliffe, had been on the phone with his American counterpart overnight.

 

[Barking_Mad]

Interesting article here from the Beeb suggesting that far-right zanies whoring for big oil in Congress are convinced that they can prevent any legislation that would allow Obama from promising US emission cuts from going through.

You'll note the critical role played by recent oil company PR dirty tricks campaigns in his thinking.

Even if it were proven that climate change is not man made, you get the impression that the deniers would rather carry on polluting anyway. THeir argument seems to be that 'they are being lied to', and therefore they should just carry on regardless...

 

[weltweit]

I don't understand why so few countries are party to that agreement.

US, China, India and South Africa

Not one European state?

I know some leaders left the centre before the end of the day but 4 states hardly makes a world agreement.

 

[weltweit]

Key powers reach compromise at climate summit
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8421935.stm

 

[newharper]

Key powers reach compromise at climate summit
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8421935.stm

Europe still noticeable by it's absence though.

 

[paolo]

The end result appears to be an aspiration (2 degrees), and some money for developing countries. No agreed CO2 reduction.

"Key powers reach compromise" - which is also what the Telegraph has run with - is masking the failure.

It's a very poor outcome in my book.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Anyone notice Obama rolling up in a private Boeing 747, then getting in to Marine One, a large helicopter for the final few miles of his journey. This helicopter being flanked by two other identical ones. All three of which were flown over from the US on another plane the size of a 747.

etc.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Could all these terribly important people not have found an extra day in their diaries to sort out the end of the bastard world?

Fucking clowns the lot of them

 

[Pickman's model]

What can we expect from Copenhagen?

The words 'fuck all' spring to mind.

^^^ this

 

[gentlegreen]

A shame they couldn't have held the whole farce on Tuvalu and handed out free wellies.

I'd have made 'em row there and back ...

 

[smokedout]

In that clip, a crowd shouts "5-4-3-2-1-GO!" and charge into a police line. Use of billy clubs follows. Not nice, but what you expect if a crowd imitate the opening of Thunderbirds. The cops look in control, and constantly pull back, including when a person is lying on the floor.

If this is as bad as it gets, the Danish PD are coming out of this OK.

 

[Apathy]

those Danish police dont fuck about

 

[Sasaferrato]

Having had time to view the outcome, and ( sort of ) figure out what it actually means, I'm very satisfied with Copenhgen.

In real terms, it means virtually nothing at all.

 

[gentlegreen]

I think I must have imagined reading that Sass has children and a grandchild ..

... but then I have considered anyone raising children at any point since the 70s as being in denial.

 

[Sasaferrato]

I think I must have imagined reading that Sass has children and a grandchild ..

I take it that you have read that sea level rise has been virtually steady for a century, and that the reason that Maldives are sinking is because of tectonic plate activity, or does the actual science bore you so much that you just believe the propaganda?

 

[Bob_the_lost]

I take it that you have read that sea level rise has been virtually steady for a century, and that the reason that Maldives are sinking is because of tectonic plate activity, or does the actual science bore you so much that you just believe the propaganda?

Yeah, that's why satelites have been measuring an average rise of 2.8mm a year since 1992. It's only "virtually steady" when you drop the scale down to stupidly low.

 

[Sasaferrato]

Yeah, that's why satelites have been measuring an average rise of 2.8mm a year since 1992. It's only "virtually steady" when you drop the scale down to stupidly low.

According to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), sea levels have been rising about 3 mm per year since 1993 – totalling a 200 mm increase (7.87 inches) in global averaged sea level since 1870.

So, that is an inch per eight years, about a foot per century. Makes a bit of a mockery of the alarmist cretins who are screaming that it will rise by 3' by 2100.

The main words that are used by the climate change advocates are:

If
Maybe
Perhaps
Probably
We think
It seems

This is the language of the clueless.

Remember:

Torture the data for long enough and it will say what you want it to.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

 

[Sasaferrato]

As comedians, the global warming enthusiasts are not a bad act, as factual scientists, they are dismal.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

If you're looking to wind up some hippies on a boring Saturday afternoon Sass, why don't you try to find another issue where it's not quite so fecking obvious

 

[Sasaferrato]

If you're looking to wind up some hippies on a boring Saturday afternoon Sass, why don't you try to find another issue where it's not quite so fecking obvious

My main active hobby is fishing, I never go home whilst they are still biting.

 

[weltweit]

Copenhagen deal: Key points
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8422307.stm

Copenhagen Accord (PDF)
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/cop15/eng/l07.pdf

 

[Bernie Gunther]

The deal promises to deliver $30bn (£18.5bn) of aid for developing nations over the next three years. It outlines a goal of providing $100bn a year by 2020 to help poor countries cope with the impacts of climate change.

The accord says the rich countries will jointly mobilise the $100bn, drawing on a variety of sources: "public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources of finance."

A green climate fund will also be established under the deal. It will support projects in developing countries related to mitigation, adaptation, "capacity building" and technology transfer.

source above

This is presumably via the IMF or something and translates into 'debt' (otherwise why is private finance involved)

 

[weltweit]

I don't know but I thought the first we heard of this $100bn pa was Hilary Clinton and she did not say clearly where the money was going to come from.

 

[Paul Russell]

I see the Daily Express take on it was (approximate front page headline as seen in newsagent):

"Climate nut Brown will bankrupt Britain".

with their "Environment Editor" mentioning something about scientists being divided about whether global warning was manmade.

Jesus wept.

Also, if I overhear one more person saying that they don't believe in global warming because it's really cold today (which it isn't anyway), I am going on a killing spree.

 

[free spirit]

I take it that you have read that sea level rise has been virtually steady for a century

According to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), sea levels have been rising about 3 mm per year since 1993 – totalling a 200 mm increase (7.87 inches) in global averaged sea level since 1870.

make your mind up sas, is it virtually steady or has it risen by 20cm over the last 140 years, with the rate of increase rising to approx 3mm a year over recent decades?

or is a 20 cm rise now known as virtually steady?

So, that is an inch per eight years, about a foot per century. Makes a bit of a mockery of the alarmist cretins who are screaming that it will rise by 3' by 2100.

erm, but the rate of increase is increasing, and expected to continue increasing as the global temperature increases, therefore basing future sea level rise on current rates alone would be pretty fucking stupid.

Remember:

Torture the data for long enough and it will say what you want it to.

unless your name's sasaferrato, in which case you can torture the data as much as you want and all it says is that you're utterly clueless on this subject.