# Predictions for Copenhagen



## 2020hindsight (13 July 2009)

Any thoughts?



> The pollution promises made
> 
> countries / cuts in emissions so far promised
> 
> ...




http://en.cop15.dk/?gclid=CPHEtoXY0psCFcIvpAodBGPZKA
late extra :-


> President Dmitry Medvedev rounded off last week's G8 summit by pledging that Russia would cut its greenhouse gas emissions at least 50 percent compared with 1990 levels.




Note that the UN Climate Change Conference is on between Dec 7 to Dec 18 2009.
About 150 days time

PS this poll closes about 3 weeks before that (130 days) - to stop people voting when all the voting intentions surrounding the conference have been disclosed.


----------



## Largesse (13 July 2009)

to be honest, i don't care as long as the governments all implement cap and trade schemes.

so i can make a fortune when i get a job at an IDB


----------



## Buckeroo (13 July 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> Any thoughts?




So, when do the people of the European Union begin moving into their caves?

Cheers


----------



## spooly74 (13 July 2009)

f. None



> THE US President, Barack Obama, has urged world leaders to banish their pessimism about thrashing out a climate-change deal with developing countries, heralding a new era for the US and citing Australia's carbon capture project for plaudits.
> 
> However, just hours later Mr Rudd was overheard pouring cold water on the prospects for a deal at the Copenhagen talks in December.
> 
> ...



http://www.smh.com.au/environment/g...ns-on-rudds-victory-parade-20090710-dg23.html


----------



## So_Cynical (13 July 2009)

Nothing spectacular will come outa Copenhagen...there will be a general consensus to do more (concerned looks, nodding heads and pretty speeches) with no short term, binding targets.

Politically the world is not ready to take this too seriously...all 2050 targets are a joke.


----------



## wayneL (14 July 2009)

Here's my prediction:

Thousands of delegates and their staff will leave their large centrally heated and airconditioned homes, in large V8 powered limousines, will fly to Copenhagen in comfort in jet aircraft, be chauffer driven, again in large V8 powered vehicles, to plush energy hungry hotels.

They will expend vast amounts of energy heating/cooling/lighting the conference centre and being shuttled backwards and forwards to their hotels. Tonnes of CO2 and methane will be emitted by copious quantities of bullsh!t

Then they will repeat the process returning home.

A will be proclaimed that people are using too much energy.

Meanwhile, the planet continues to cool, other real environmental problems ignored.

Go figure


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 July 2009)

Giddens was great on Lateline last night ..
Transcript and video here ...

(Sadly I've had to seriously summarise it - excerpts follow).

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2624800.htm
Giddens discusses climate change and politics
Brilliant.. 
accentuating the positives...


> Giddens discusses climate change and politics
> ABC Lateline 13/07/2009
> Reporter: Leigh Sales
> Lord Anthony Giddens, author of the Politics of Climate Change, joins Lateline to discuss issues raised by Al Gore's visit to Australia.
> ...



wow he don't hold back, does he...



> LEIGH SALES: So for the average person who don't know much about science, ... who are they supposed to trust and believe in this discussion?
> 
> ANTHONY GIDDENS: ...






> LEIGH SALES: So are those the sort of things that we need to look at now to mobilise governments and people to action - that sort of economic necessity, I suppose?
> 
> ANTHONY GIDDENS: Well, I think what we need to do is we need to find areas where reducing emissions, increasing proportion of energy coming from renewable sources, does actually make businesses more competitive; where the changes that are needed also link to profitability for business ...




Plenty more there, but I'll call this his summary :-


> I'm in favour of climate-change positive - not just concentrating on costs and not only concentrating on dangers, *concentrating also on opportunities.* And you may know that there are two American environmentalists who said that *Martin Luther King would never have got anyone to follow him in the way in which they did if he'd said, "I have a catastrophe". We need a sort of dream. We need a vision of a low-carbon economy and a future society which will have positives, not just the negative avoidance of risk.*




Finally his prediction for Copenhagen :-


> LEIGH SALES: Well, do you bring that hopefulness and positive attitude to the potential outcome from Copenhagen? Are you optimistic there?
> 
> ANTHONY GIDDENS: Well, ... I do hope that the Copenhagen meetings are successful, *but I think there are reasons to doubt how far concrete agreements will be reached. Very hard to reach agreement when you've got 180 or so countries trying to do so. When you do reach agreements they tend to be at very low level, as they were in Kyoto*. ...
> ....
> ...



Interesting, no mention of nuclear throughout the article?


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 July 2009)

> Chu to set the stage for Obama in China
> US Energy Secretary Steven Chu (left) and Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, both of Chinese descent, are going to China this week to press for an intensified joint effort between the two countries against global warming.



http://en.cop15.dk/news/view+news?newsid=1702



> "The potential (for the United States and China to work together on climate issues) is very large and the need is very serious," said Kenneth Lieberthal, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institute, a US think tank.
> 
> Locke, a former governor from the export-oriented state of Washington, is eager to showcase opportunities for China to reduce carbon dioxide emissions using US solar, wind, hydro and other renewable technologies.




probably using patents that were originally Aussie


----------



## basilio (14 July 2009)

Good story from Giddens last night 2020. Well nuanced and certainly picks up the need to create a positive picture for the future.

 His take on how climate sceptics have simply disregarded almost all the scientific understanding in the field is (IMHO) spot on.


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 July 2009)

basilio said:


> His take on how climate sceptics have simply disregarded almost all the scientific understanding in the field is (IMHO) spot on.



no argument from me bas  - other than the fact that a lot of so-called sceptics are in fact locked in denial. 

PS as for Giddens, how clever is the bloke that he can string sentences together like that - under the spotlight of instantaneous interview (even if prerecorded, can't tell for sure - but it didn't appear to have any breaks) - and you read it later, and you wonder if you could have said it as well even if you had had a week to work on the answers. 

btw, here's my prediction....

That Copenhagen will have more effect on the direction and magnitude and longevity of future trends in investments. - than anything since the world wars and the world depressions.


----------



## Calliope (14 July 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> btw, here's my prediction....
> 
> That Copenhagen will have more effect on the direction and magnitude and longevity of future trends in investments. - than anything since the world wars and the world depressions.




A very gloomy prediction indeed. But I agree.


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 July 2009)

Calliope said:


> A very gloomy prediction indeed. But I agree.



I seem to recall you said something vaguely (very vaguely) similar once calliope - that the global financial crisis would make action on GW/CC unnecessary. Sorry, but I can't agree with that one.


----------



## wayneL (14 July 2009)

A couple of posts from one of the other threads FYI



wayneL said:


> Here's another interesting article:
> 
> http://www.gaia-technology.com/sa/newsletters/newsletters.cfm
> 
> ...




and



wayneL said:


> From http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2009/04/18/kyotos-impact-on-atmospheric-co2/ (a very good blog BTW)
> 
> :::



...




>


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 July 2009)

yes but as Anthony Giddens said back there, Copenhagen will be more influenced by what 98% of the climate scientists think, than it will by what 40% of the population think, influenced as they are by the billions spent by Exxon to disseminate spurious and misleading pseudo-science on the matter.  (well documented).


----------



## wayneL (14 July 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> yes but as Anthony Giddens said back there, Copenhagen will be more influenced by what 98% of the climate scientists think, than it will by what 40% of the population think, influenced as they are by the billions spent by Exxon to disseminate spurious and misleading pseudo-science on the matter.  (well documented).




Confirmation bias. Spurious and misleading pseudo-science is encountered on both sides as is evident by the glaring mistake in fossil fuel reserves... and many other examples.

There are vested interests on both sides.

The trick here is to identify the true culprit in climate change. There is not one, but many, some natural, some man made, some regional, some global.

Copenhagen's focus is on a minor player in global climate, viz, co2. Therefore it is useless and unholistic; a waste of time and carbon fuels carting delegates all over the world.


----------



## wayneL (14 July 2009)

BTW I will continue to direct folks to one of the only honest brokers in the whole schmozzle ==>> http://climatesci.org


----------



## Calliope (14 July 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> I seem to recall you said something vaguely (very vaguely) similar once calliope - that the global financial crisis would make action on GW/CC unnecessary. Sorry, but I can't agree with that one.




No you are not wired to agree with me, but on the other hand I agree with you that the effects of Copenhagen could be more damaging than two world wars and the depressions.


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 July 2009)

wayneL said:


> 1. The trick here is to identify the true culprit in climate change. There is not one, but many, some natural, some man made, some regional, some global.
> 
> 2. Copenhagen's focus is on a minor player in global climate, viz, co2.




1. agree
2. disagree ( that co2 / GHG is / are minor)


----------



## wayneL (15 July 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> 2. disagree ( that co2 / GHG is / are minor)



Source of the chart and evidence of accuracy please.

Again refer to honest broker http://climatesci.org


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 July 2009)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change
Half way down the page.
Surprised you weren't aware of it.

Note that similar wiki websites give a stack of scientific references (aften originating from IPCC) disputing your claim that Antartica is cooling -  and pointing out that the peninsula is definitely heating, while some other plaes are heating, and some are cooling.


----------



## wayneL (15 July 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change
> Half way down the page.
> Surprised you weren't aware of it.




Wikipedia is about the last place I'd look for accurate info on anything. Handy as a primer, but that's it.


----------



## Calliope (15 July 2009)

You left out;

 g)  nothing they can do at Copenhagen can have any effect on climate change


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 July 2009)

Promises are one thing, action is another. 

Regardless of what is promised, I'm confident that the use of coal and gas will continue to increase over the next two decades at least.


----------



## wayneL (15 July 2009)

Just noticed 2020's chart stops at 1992ish.

Data mining.


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 July 2009)

wayneL said:


> Wikipedia is about the last place I'd look for accurate info on anything. Handy as a primer, but that's it.



the beauty of most wiki sites (on this matter anyway) is that they go on to give you a stack of further reading / reliable references 

again. I'm surprised you weren't aware of it anyways - it's been around a fair while as you point out.  And I've posted it a few times before as well. 

It is also almost identical to that youtube presented by David Attenborough (using IPCC and UK Met Bureau data) .  I won't post it again , I 've probably done so 3 or 4 times already.  And those that refuse to read this sort of data will continue to refuse to read it no doubt.


----------



## Temjin (16 July 2009)

Why there isn't an option for suggesting the convention is a complete waste of time and that there are no compelling evidences for global warming and that CO2 is an insignificant gas in comparsion to our atmosphere. (see WayneL's chart)

Show us a chart with global temperature that spans over thousand of years, then we can talk.

Regardless, I know it's pointless in trying to convince the pro-global warming/climate change people that this is all a hype influenced by vested interest parties (e.g. Al Gore's investment firm) through the media with doom and gloom tactics.

But let's be realistic, I'm all for sustainable technologies and for increased efficiency via doing more for LESS. Everything has to be make PERFECT economic sense. 

If it doesn't, there is nothing the government can do, next to pointing a gun at you, to make people to change for the supposedly "a better world with less CO2" thesis. 

Nuclear energy is a technologically and commercially viable option. Why it isn't being discussed? 

About the gap between opinions amoung the scientific communities and those of the public. First, I HIGHLY DOUBT there is only 1-2 % of the scientific community that are climate-skeptics. My understanding is that it is a lot higher than most pro-climate change want to believe (or want it to be published) Secondly, there are vested interest parties within the scientific communities for promoting climate changes, and obviously for their own interest, both financially or to satisify their ego need for wanting to be RIGHT. If they were proven wrong, then their career is over, and that's bad for them in EVERY WAY. Too much is at stake for them here. 

When the LIFE CYCLE cost of solar energy plus energy storage is less than non-renewable ones and WITHOUT government subsidies, then we can start talking. Until then, it's all unrealistic and unattainable. 

Another thing, go ahead and try to convince China, and other emerging countries, to sacrifice economic growth for less CO2. Good luck with that!


----------



## Julia (16 July 2009)

Temjin said:


> Why there isn't an option for suggesting the convention is a complete waste of time and that there are no compelling evidences for global warming and that CO2 is an insignificant gas in comparsion to our atmosphere. (see WayneL's chart)




Because 2020 Hindsight designed the Poll and to him such an option is unthinkable.
I ticked "Other" as the most likely from some unacceptable choices.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (16 July 2009)

Julia said:


> Because 2020 Hindsight designed the Poll and to him such an option is unthinkable.
> I ticked "Other" as the most likely from some unacceptable choices.




sorry Julia, I've been out mustering these last 2 weeks , can I have a mad minute on "Copenhagen"

gg


----------



## Calliope (16 July 2009)

Julia said:


> Because 2020 Hindsight designed the Poll and to him such an option is unthinkable.
> I ticked "Other" as the most likely from some unacceptable choices.




Yes it's an old ploy in polling to set questions so as to get only the answers you want. If you don't agree with what the pollster wants you don't get a choice. I doubt if the slippery old 2020 could lie straight in bed.

The poll is worthless.


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 July 2009)

well there are a few ways to answer this.. lol.
"other " is an option is it not?
go for your life.

btw temjin, you go on to say 


> Nuclear energy is a technologically and commercially viable option. Why it isn't being discussed?



I reckon you just made a massively accurate prediction - that indeed it will get one heap of discussion allocated to it!!

:topic
My turn to make a prediction, but this one's nothing to do with copenhagen.
Steve Fielding will be voted out at the next opportunity.  It would do wonders for the average intelligence of Canberra. 

lol - anyone remember Piggy Muldoon's comment on that one - when it was pointed out to him that Kiwis were coming to Aussie in massive numbers. ?
"Well all I can say is that it will raise the average intelligence of both countries"  

Nothing personal Julia.  And according to that you've raised our iq.


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 July 2009)

Tell you one thing though - there are dozens of threads out there where people who want to can challlenge global warming / climate change. 

But the fact is that Copenhagen is coming up, and there will be an outcome, - even if the plug is pulled by
d) the developed world, or
e) the developing world.

I'll make this prediction also  ...
g) The poor bludy undeveloped world will start to die in greatly increased numbers while we in USA and AUS create 25 times more Co2e than they do.  

Btw, here's a good summary of some of the arguments on the science and the controversy etc (not on the conference). 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

But in the end it comes down to this - imo anyway.


> In 1997, the "World Scientists Call For Action" petition was presented to world leaders meeting to negotiate the Kyoto Protocol. The declaration asserted, "A broad consensus among the world's climatologists is that there is now ‘a discernible human influence on global climate.’" It urged governments to make "legally binding commitments to reduce industrial nations' emissions of heat-trapping gases", and called global warming "one of the most serious threats to the planet and to future generations."[28] The petition was conceived by the Union of Concerned Scientists as a follow up to their 1992 World Scientists' Warning to Humanity, and was signed by "more than 1,500 of the world's most distinguished senior scientists, including the majority of Nobel laureates in science."[29][30]




PS I note that there is a vote that suggests that the developing world will bring the conference down.    Could be true of course.  But really, when I wrote "the selfish gene of the developing world" - I was thinking to myself, why wouldn't they expect a more equal share!  What right do we think we have to use up all the planet's resources with nonsense neon lights etc , - trashing the place in the process  - when billions don't even have lights.


----------



## Calliope (16 July 2009)

What a crock...


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 July 2009)

what was that I heard in parliament the other day ?
" I thought I told you to stay in the car and bite strangers!"


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (16 July 2009)

wtf is Copenhagen.

For Aussies.

wtf is it?

gg


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 July 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> wtf is Copenhagen.
> 
> For Aussies.
> 
> ...



just some mob in Europe who want to stick their nose into future weather forecasts in Townsville m8, 

- btw it takes Europe forever to agree on a code ( they call em Eurocodes).  THey have to get 22 countries to agree to how roads or bridges etc should be built etc ... not easy - the Germans on the one hand, the Icelanders on the other etc.

So it's true, and fair enough - it WON'T be easy for Copenhagen Conference to get 180 countries to agree on climate change strategies. 

But I sure wish em well.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (17 July 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> just some mob in Europe who want to stick their nose into future weather forecasts in Townsville m8,
> 
> - btw it takes Europe forever to agree on a code ( they call em Eurocodes).  THey have to get 22 countries to agree to how roads or bridges etc should be built etc ... not easy - the Germans on the one hand, the Icelanders on the other etc.
> 
> ...




Thanks mate,

I was in the Creek for a few days, when it was news,  for unpaid fines and not wearing a bicycle helmet and had other concerns rather than following Fran and the sheila from the Age on the ABC.

gg


----------



## brty (17 July 2009)

I'm going out on a limb here for my "Predictions for Copenhagen" in December..


Cold and wet.:

brty


----------



## Calliope (17 July 2009)

My prediction is that there will be a lot of hot air, but it will be very localised and have no global effect.


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 July 2009)

Anyone want to predict if Copenhagen might trigger a double dissolution (disillusion whatever) ? :-
http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen...d-be-better-for-labor-in-the-senate.html#more

I'm predicting that Labor goes the full course .. (as much as anything, so they don't have the chaoticly random decisions of the likes of Fielding to deal with ...) 

i.e. in a half senate election, Fielding has (even) less chance of retaining his position in the senate. 

Here's ABC's Antony Green on the subject :-


----------



## Calliope (19 July 2009)

I predict that the Republican Rudd will make sure that he get's publicity posing with Princess Mary.


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 July 2009)

Maybe do a Keating and pat 'er on the backside y reckon.

PS Howard would have done the same if he had the chance - then again that was as high as he could reach.


----------



## Calliope (19 July 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> PS Howard would have done the same if he had the chance - then again that was as high as he could reach.




I think Howard was a monarchist. However I may be wrong.


----------



## Buckeroo (20 July 2009)

Copenhagen is a mirage in the desert, a figment of peoples imagination. As is always, nothing ever comes from group therapy sessions.

If you are a climate change believer (which personally I'm not), the best you can hope for is the world economy tanking - there would be no need for action particularly if its severe. With 20 - 30% unemployment, the environment wins as long as no war occurs. 

For Australia, Krudd will do anything he can to destroy our economy and a carbon tax will greatly assist in achieving this objective - so unfortunately, it will probably happen.

Cheers

2020hindsight
I can't see how you can compare Howard with Keating when it comes to decorum - Keating never had any class, he's really not much higher in the scheme of things than a pimple on Howard's rear end.


----------



## 2020hindsight (22 July 2009)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/21/2632483.htm?section=justin


> The deep divisions in the Opposition over an emissions trading scheme have been laid bare for all to see, with outspoken Liberal backbencher Wilson Tuckey labelling his leader "arrogant" and "inexperienced".
> Mr Tuckey sent an email to all Opposition MPs and Senators criticising Malcolm Turnbull for suggesting the Coalition could back a scheme ...
> Mr Tuckey is no fan of the Government's emissions trading scheme, but he is more worried Mr Turnbull appears keen to manoeuvre the Coalition into voting for it.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/21/2632081.htm?section=justin


> Former Liberal minister Robert Hill will chair a Federal Government trust designed to improve the energy efficiency of buildings.
> The Brisbane-based Carbon Trust will see $75 million loaned to households, organisations and companies to refurbish buildings to make them more energy efficient.
> The money will be paid back to the trust by the recipients through savings from lower energy bills.
> Mr Hill held the positions of environment minister and defence minister in the Howard government.
> ...



So , in summary , the current Labor are pro-action
Past Libs are pro-action
Current Lib leadership ( Turnbull and Hockey) are prepared to negotiate before Copenhagen
Greens are pro action
Nick Xenophon is predominantly pro-action (but timing undecided)
Fielding - depends whether he's had his medication today or not ..

But then there's Wilson Tuckey lol <Deleted>


----------



## wayneL (22 July 2009)

Tuckey should have been put out to pasture long ago, but on this issue, he deserves to be heard.

Politics is about discussion, debate and determining the best course of action.

Emissions trading is a very detrimental course of action with a very sinister ulterior motive.


----------



## Mr J (22 July 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> It is also almost identical to that youtube presented by David Attenborough (using IPCC and UK Met Bureau data) .  I won't post it again , I 've probably done so 3 or 4 times already.  And those that refuse to read this sort of data will continue to refuse to read it no doubt.




That Attenborough clip was a load of rubbish, or at least simplified to the point where it can't be taken seriously. God knows what they may have done to their models, the flawed inputs or the selective data. My take is similar to how I'd define a swing in the market. It may be happening, but we can't know until it's too late. Since this is basically our first climate swing to predict, it's like asking a random person whether the market will go up or down. Even then all it proves is that the climate is warming. I think what really says it all is that the pro-humans-warming -climate scientists are stating it as fact. A true scientist would not do this.


----------



## 2020hindsight (22 July 2009)

Mr J said:


> ...It may be happening, but we can't know until it's too late...



Can't see you getting a job with the weather bureau there Mr J.  (let alone the IPCC).   And if you listen to what they're saying, it is that there is one heap of evidence that things are going downhill at an unprecedented rate.


----------



## wayneL (22 July 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> Can't see you getting a job with the weather bureau there Mr J.  (let alone the IPCC).   And if you listen to what they're saying, it is that there is one heap of evidence that things are going downhill at an unprecedented rate.




There is evidence the US was behind 911 too. Do you believe it?

There is evidence the moon landings were faked. Do you believe it?

There is heaps of evidence that co2 is a minor climate forcing.

Who's right?

Re CC, I believe *balanced* scientific evidence like that discussed by Roger Pielke Snr.

BTW that image has been thoroughly trashed and discredited before on this forum. The "unequivocal" stamp can only be used by a total imbecile. There is nothing unequivocal about hypothesis, particularly in chaotic systems.


----------



## 2020hindsight (22 July 2009)

Just in case you've got a bad memory - remember the fires last Jan (Black Saturday) ?  unprecedented fire hazard conditions ?

PS A few more people should read some of James Lovelock imo.   He's an old man now. When he dies, the world will mourn. 

When the likes of Fred Singer and Tim Ball die, it will be a different matter - probably a smile from  those whose relatives died because they told them there was no risk of cancer from cigarettes.

and of course they also say there is no evidence of agw


----------



## wayneL (22 July 2009)

Many of those points have been shown to be nonsense as well.


----------



## Mr J (22 July 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> And if you listen to what they're saying, it is that there is one heap of evidence that *things are going downhill at an unprecedented rate*.




Seems it did for the dinosaurs as well. Perhaps they caused global warming with the methane from their farts .

I think the weather reports from the done the public a disservice. Had they always listed the probabilities, the public may have some understanding or probbabilities and variance. How many people have said "well, the weather girl got it wrong today", when the actual information may have suggested there was a 60% chance of rain, not a 100% chance? Maybe they concluded people could not understand it anyway, but I believe it was actually weather that started me to think in terms of probability.


----------



## Julia (22 July 2009)

Going back to the clear split in the Libs regarding the ETS, Malcolm Turnbull is in a very difficult position.   If he refuses to negotiate and ultimately pass the ETS legislation, he is giving Labor a perfect double dissolution trigger.

Obviously he doesn't want this because clearly the Libs would lose.

Stupid Wilson Tuckey is saying he can "think of no better issue on which to fight an election".  Get real, Wilson.  You'd lose, for damn sure, you idjit.

I doubt Mr Turnbull has the personal negotiating and/or unifying skills to find a satisfactory solution here.  He has not just Tuckey, but Warren Truss and Barnaby Joyce et al vowing that they will not agree to the ETS, now or ever.

So different from the Howard era when (rightly or wrongly) the party was unified behind John Howard and presented a single view to the opposition and the media.  Clearly Mr Turnbull has so far failed to engender that level of respect from his colleagues.

Labor must be tickled pink.


----------



## Calliope (22 July 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> PS A few more people should read some of James Lovelock imo.   He's an old man now. When he dies, the world will mourn.




So we're all doomed in 40 years! Why are you making such a song and dance about it? You won't be around. Doomsayers have been proclaiming "The End is Nigh" for centuries.. If an Apocalypse does come I don't think we will get much notice.


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 July 2009)

Calliope said:


> So we're all doomed in 40 years! Why are you making such a song and dance about it? You won't be around. Doomsayers have been proclaiming "The End is Nigh" for centuries.. If an Apocalypse does come I don't think we will get much notice.



I'll let others comment on that attitude ... 

Like I say, A few more people should read James Lovelock.
We've had a heap of notice- he's been writing on it for decades. 

You'd see that he deserves the many acculades bestowed upon him. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Lovelock


> Lovelock was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1974. He served as the president of the Marine Biological Association (MBA) from 1986 to 1990, and has been a Honorary Visiting Fellow of Green Templeton College, Oxford (formerly Green College, Oxford) since 1994. He has been awarded a number of prestigious prizes including the Tswett Medal (1975), an ACS chromatography award (1980), the WMO Norbert Gerbier Prize (1988), the Dr A.H. Heineken Prize for the Environment (1990) and the RGS Discovery Lifetime award (2001). He became a CBE in 1990, and a Companion of Honour in 2003.




Learn about his twigging to possible ozone layer problems - just looking at a sunset one day, and noticing the "anthropogenic haze", etc. - and from that - and some testing and further research by him and others - came the realisation that we absolutely had to act if we didn't want to destroy the ozone layer. 

Until you read some of this bloke Calliope, we're not gonna get very far in sensible discussion about him are we. 

A couple here (a stack of others):-

1979 / 2000 Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth (3rd ed. ed.). Oxford University Press. 
1991 / 2001 Gaia: *The Practical Science of Planetary Medicine*.  [This one is more like an earth chemistry / physics textbook - *recommended*] 

2006 : The Revenge of Gaia: Why the Earth Is Fighting Back - *and How We Can Still Save Humanity.* 
2009 :The Vanishing Face of Gaia: A Final Warning: Enjoy It While You Can. 

Basically, he says you can look at the atmosphere of a planet and tell if it has life or not.  Too much CO2 (eg Mars environment - that he researched whilst working with NASA) - no chance.

With so much CO2, (and so little O2) Mars was always gonna be a dead planet. 



> A lifelong inventor, Lovelock has created and developed many scientific instruments, some of which were designed for NASA in its programme of planetary exploration. It was while working as a consultant for NASA that Lovelock developed the Gaia Hypothesis, for which he is most widely known.
> 
> In early 1961, Lovelock was engaged by NASA to develop sensitive instruments for the analysis of extraterrestrial atmospheres and planetary surfaces. The Viking program that visited Mars in the late-1970s was motivated in part to determining whether Mars supported life, and many of the sensors and experiments that were ultimately deployed aimed to resolve this issue. During work on a precursor of this program, *Lovelock became interested in the composition of the Martian atmosphere, reasoning that many life forms on Mars would be obliged to make use of it (and, thus, alter it). However, the atmosphere was found to be in a stable condition close to its chemical equilibrium, with very little oxygen, methane, or hydrogen, but with an overwhelming abundance of carbon dioxide*. To Lovelock, the stark contrast between the Martian atmosphere and chemically-dynamic mixture of that of our Earth's biosphere was strongly *indicative of the absence of life on the planet*.[4]
> 
> However, when they were finally launched to Mars, the Viking probes still searched (unsuccessfully) for extant life there.



ozone :-


> Lovelock invented the electron capture detector, which ultimately assisted in discoveries about the persistence of CFCs and their role in stratospheric ozone depletion.[5][6][7]



nuclear supporter:-


> Lovelock has become concerned about the threat of global warming from the greenhouse effect. In 2004 he caused a media sensation when he broke with many fellow environmentalists by pronouncing that "*only nuclear power can now halt global warming*".
> 
> *In his view, nuclear energy is the only realistic alternative to fossil fuels that has the capacity to both fulfill the large scale energy needs of humankind while also reducing greenhouse emissions.* He is an open member of Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy.


----------



## Calliope (23 July 2009)

2020,

:topic You are obviously a devout follower of this guy which answers my question. Now I know where you got your pro-nuclear stance. Your beliefs are really none of my business.

Cheers.


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 July 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> ... he deserves the many acculades bestowed upon him. ...



doh - stupid bludy language ...


> *accolade*   1. any award, honor, or laudatory notice: The play received accolades from the press.
> 
> 2. a light touch on the shoulder with the flat side of the sword or formerly by an embrace, done in the ceremony of conferring knighthood.
> 
> etc




PS whereas "to behead" is "a somewhat more vigourous touch of the sword, more on the neck than the shoulder" etc


----------



## Julia (23 July 2009)

2020, what has the above post to do with the topic?
Nothing, as far as I can tell.

Do you just have nothing to do, that you feel obliged to clog up threads with your multiple irrelevancies?


----------



## Calliope (24 July 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> doh - stupid bludy language ...
> 
> 
> PS whereas "to behead" is "a somewhat more vigourous touch of the sword, more on the neck than the shoulder" etc




What's all this rubbish got to do with the thread you started. I'm afraid you are living up to your name and keep revisiting old posts. The result is no one knows what you are on about, or whether you are living in the past or the present.

To get back to your thread, I predict that Rudd will come back from Copenhagen with his tail between his legs. This buffoon who thinks he's a world leader has been firmly put in his place by a country that he thought he could influence. 

China is the only country that has any relevance in the decisions of Copenhagen, and it's not in China's interests to accept the emissions targets of the western democracies.


----------



## Buckeroo (24 July 2009)

Agreed Calliope, it will depend on China & the US.

I saw in the "Australian", that in its present form, our CPRS tax on energy in the first year will be around $404 per person (through the permit system) while in the US around $57.

Krudd must look like a real hero at Copenhagen, willing to sacrifice Australia for practically no environmental benefit!

And its ironic, that few people in Australia doubt they will feel any pain economically because the permits are targeted to business. Why is that a highly educated nation does not see a link between increased business costs & lower living standards? Beats me.

Same can be said of the stimulus packages - but that's another story.

Cheers


----------



## 2020hindsight (25 July 2009)

Julia said:


> 2020, what has the above post to do with the topic?
> Nothing, as far as I can tell.
> 
> Do you just have nothing to do, that you feel obliged to clog up threads with your multiple irrelevancies?




Julia
I was just correcting a spelling mistake. (as you were encouraging us to do last week, I thought). 

Still I realise it's easier to criticise that post than the previous one about James Lovelock


----------



## Calliope (25 July 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> Julia
> I was just correcting a spelling mistake. (as you were encouraging us to do last week, I thought).




You are wrong again. Julia was suggesting you check before you send. Not after.


----------



## 2020hindsight (25 July 2009)

Calliope said:


> You are wrong again. Julia was suggesting you check before you send. Not after.



and Calliope , you're right again.

Still the moving pen writes, and having writ moves on,  and , once the timer has gone past 20 minutes or whatever, you have no option but to sort it out later in another post.  

whatever.  Enjoy your pedantries-within-pedantries.


----------



## brty (7 December 2009)

I'm sticking with my earlier forecast for Copenhagen, made months ago......



> I'm going out on a limb here for my "Predictions for Copenhagen" in December..
> 
> 
> Cold and wet.




With rain and top temps of 6 and 4 degrees predicted for Wednesday and Thursday, it is very apt for a global warming talkfest. Sorry that should be climate change, apparently they lost the warming bit.

brty


----------



## GumbyLearner (7 December 2009)

Sex and Gropenhagen

http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,665182,00.html

Danish sex workers are offering free sex to COP15 in order to defend their industry.


----------



## lasty (8 December 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> Sex and Gropenhagen
> 
> http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,665182,00.html
> 
> Danish sex workers are offering free sex to COP15 in order to defend their industry.




Its probably the only Global warming evidence they will find


----------



## Julia (8 December 2009)

An extract from "Business Spectator" re Copenhagen:



> Weather-wise, Copenhagen is not an accommodating place for a “warmist”, as climate sceptics like to call most of the delegates. For a start it’s cold – it was a maximum of 6 degrees Celsius today and one wonders whether having a conference in a bleak, overheated, drought riven city – Adelaide, for instance – might have got the point across a little more clearly. And the statistics don’t help. Since a late November peak of 12 degrees, Copenhagen’s daily maximum’s have obstinately fallen, despite the country emitting an extra 2 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere over that time. Proof, coolists could argue, that Copenhagen might be like one of those parties where the guest of honour – in this case global warming – failed to show. Or, maybe it’s winter. But if you cut a graph short enough, it’s possible to tell any story.


----------

