Climate change another name for Weather

[wayneL]

Rubbish! The 'deniers and skeptics' are equally vehement, biased and unscientific in their rants.

Look at your post (quoted). You start by complaining of being a "realist ... attacked by alarmists", then go on to attack people who don't agree with you ("idealogical mindsets of ... brainwashed acolytes").

Bit hypocritical mate.

I think you've missed the point of Calliope's post, to wit:

Those who do are attacked by the alarmists with sneers and slurs in a deluge of so much obfuscation, muddled thinking and idealogical nonsense, that to respond you have to stoop to their level.

Climate optimists would dearly like to just stick to the science... not junk science such as assigning simple storm surges to rising sea levels, real science, but we are forced to play by the alarmist's rules as per above.

 

[PeterAD]

Hi,

Just came to get some information on an organisation and couldn't help putting in my two cents.

Climate change related or not, there are some dramatic things occurring on our planet.

Deforestation, depleting fisheries, above average desertification, more and larger cities created and draining water from agriculture and tapping permanent and unreplenishable aquifers, while at the same time food crops are being transformed into ethanol crops, unsustainable populations, over-carbonisation of our air (causing higher rates of related diseases) and oceans, (causing acidification and an number of problems related to this) glacial melts causing flooding and reduced flow during growing seasons in the major food bowls of the planet namely China and India...etc etc.

Lots of good books to read, Plan B 3.0 by Lester Brown (2007 edition out already) is an easy factual read that expands on these ideas.

Respectfully,

Peter

 

[rederob]

Climate optimists would dearly like to just stick to the science... not junk science such as assigning simple storm surges to rising sea levels, real science, but we are forced to play by the alarmist's rules as per above.

Really?
Climate optimists have not demonstrated a climate model that shows how the continually increasing man-effected gas emissions will either maintain present climate conditions, or lead to cooling.
Climate optimists have been unable to counter the historically recent trend - ie past 100 years or so - of rapidly increasing earth temperatures, after the previous 1,000 years showed a steady trend of global cooling.
The "realists" cannot explain either increasing surface or tropospheric temperatures over the past century. Nor can they readily explain the enhanced deterioration (melt) of glaciers or rapid rises in the "snow line".
Instead, the skeptics rely on past data or images of extreme weather events to show that nothing has really changed; we've seen it all before.
What the skeptics seem unwilling to concede is that the rather small measurable changes in temperature could be due to other than natural influences.
They can succeed in a fashion because we don't have a reliable "human" history of weather beyond a few hundred years, and have had to rely on "science" for our best estimates of climatic conditions in those times. In such an environment who really cares if the temperature differential a thousand years ago was less than a degree from present averages?
The people that are starting to care most are those who in recent years have actually measured weather events and eventualities, and seen a pace of change unprecedented in recorded history.
By labelling them alarmists or junk scientists or crackpots we immediately give skeptics a reputable chair at the table. The skeptics will show example after example of data/event to "prove" no change: It's just the same old weather, repeating.
And they are right.
But they don't tell you that the frequency is changing, that the intensity is changing, that the spatial distribution is changing. The skeptics cannot afford to join all the dots because their arguments then begin to fall apart.
A wee bit before my time first Copernicus and later Galileo were condemned for proposing the earth revolved around the sun. Many scientists of the time could prove it was not the case, and the Church ensured it was also a matter of faith.
Weather and climate are not matters of faith. They are matters of science. when the skeptics can model present trends to prove an alternative view, I will sit up and take notice.

 

[Happy]

...
Weather and climate are not matters of faith. They are matters of science. when the skeptics can model present trends to prove an alternative view, I will sit up and take notice.

I would rather reduce my footprint just in case even if sceptics were right.

But I have my doubts, since we’ve had ice ages.

Maybe, just maybe with our global warming, we will coincidentally slightly reduce severity of the next one.

 

[2020hindsight]

... For example, estimates of sea level changes over the next 50 years have a median of around 40 cm. Forecasts of tens or hundreds of metres are either invented or extreme outliers on the spectrum of forecasts. Good PR but bad science.

LCL
So you don't have a problem with 40cm?

As for the "outliers" question ...
as I've said before, anyone (as I believe I've heard Andrew Bolt proclaim) that says that global warming stopped in 1998 , been getting cooler since etc - when 1998 was a serious El Niño spike year - is talking nonsense.

Forget bad science - it's "spinning the stats" as only the best (or worst) policians would even attempt.

And as I mentioned then, there are liars, outliers, and out-and-out-liars

PS You don't mention your preference - action or inaction ?

 

[Smurf1976]

What is the worst thing that can happen regarding Climate Change?

We have gone back and forth on the ins and outs of climate change. We have probably agreed that we can't be certain about what will happen. The clearest fact is that by continuing to debate the issue we end up doing nothing about it and facing whatever consequence occurs.

There is a particularly excellent argument on YOU Tube which doesn't try to convince anyone of the certainty of Climate Change but does show that the safest course is to act furiously as if the scientists are right.

How does the argument go ? Put simply if climate change is crock of sxxx but we plough billions into renewable energy, changes in lifestyle , business upheaval ect the possible worst consequences could be a global depression, poverty and so on.

However if climate change is real and we don't take action then the consequences will be even more disastrous than simply a global depression. We are talking the full catastrophe. Sunk cities, destroyed landscapes, floods, droughts, total collapse.

The conversation doesn't attempt to prove or disprove the science behind global warming. It just gives us a clear understanding of the choices we face and the consequences of action or inaction.

It is only 10 minutes long. Whatever your views on the science of the issue the logic of how to approach the situation is worth considering. I'd be interested to hear responses.

Cheers



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ

Fundamentally, what I'm worried about most is that we end up with BOTH scenarios.

1. Australia acts to cut emissions and ends up with scenario 1 for this country.

2. The world as a whole continues to emit more and more CO2 thus bringing about scenario 2 for the whole planet, including Australia and others who did act.

How realistic is this scenario? It is the exact path we're following right now. Emissions continue to rise and will do so even if the various agreements to stop it are implemented. So scenario 2 is highly likely if the science is right. Meanwhile various groups are proposing that we seriously risk scenario 1 as well.

That's what's actually happening right now. Emissions are going up whether you, I or anyone else likes it or not. That's the reality of the situation.

I have not heard one single comment from anyone with any clout that would seek to even modestly change this situation - nobody's proposing more than token use of renewables / nuclear. And nobody's proposing a reduced population. Without one or both of those, we're headed for some combination of scenarios 1 & 2 whether we like it or not. Efficiency buys time yes, but it ultimately fails absolutely without either renewables / nuclear becoming dominant and/or population reduction. Do the math yourself if you doubt it.

If you want an example of how it's all about politics and not the environment, I point you to events in Hobart over the past 24 hours. The council approves a large new building to be built in Murray St. 4 blocks down the road at one end of the Waterfront there are protests outside parliament over Rudd's emissions cut plan. Meanwhile there's still arguing about building the new hospital at the other end of the Waterfront. All on ABC news right now.

The politics is breathtaking to say the least. Which state government champions the CO2 issue more than any other? Tasmania. Which is generally regarded as the greenest council area in that state? Hobart. And yet despite all that, we're proposing more buildings to use more energy whilst contemplating relocating the state's largest hospital just a few metres above sea level. Meanwhile that protest is being run by a political party that has long supported mass tourism - the impact of which is easily demonstrated by those huge gas turbines and belching diesel exhausts atop the cruise ship in port just a few metres away. So many contradictions in such a small place.

Actions speak louder than words and it's pretty clear that we're not acting to cut emissions and we're not preparing for rising sea levels either. Despite what they say, it's pretty clear that they aren't seriously losing any sleep over climate change, at least not to the point of taking it seriously and acting accordingly. That makes their public fuss on the issue a matter of politics and economics rather than actual concern.

 

[2020hindsight]

And Wayne, as I've said before also, I preferred the logic of this post of yours, #22 on the "GW - How valid and serious" thread

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=230853&highlight=pillaging#post230853

Well let's reduce CO2. As others have said, the risk is not worth taking by not doing something. I'm a skeptic over the anthropomorphic bit of GW, nevertheless I'm doing all I can reasonably do and still live in a society... much more than those bleating on about it...

 

[Smurf1976]

LCL
PS You don't mention your preference - action or inaction ?

Action.

But only if "action" means just that - action and not some other objective being pursued under the guise of climate change.

I'm not convinced on the science, but to the extent that we can reduce fossil fuel use without too much disruption we ought to do it. Fossil fuels will run out eventually anyway so in the long term we're going renewable whether we like it or not.

Cut emissions? Yes.

Implement an economic treaty under the guise of climate change that actually results in higher emissions? No.

 

[2020hindsight]

well said smurf –
except that a small step is all we might be able to achieve (at first , initially , till others come on board etc etc ) - and the main thing stopping us from getting stuck into this problem is the inertia of the type evident in many of the posts here.

btw, suppose you were on a Code Committee (which I happen to be - in another field). Given a sense of perceived responsibility in the matter, (real or imagined), or if you prefer , knowing how Codes will always err on the safe side – which would you specify?. Accept the opinion of the vast majority of scientists on this? or reject it.?

Action.

But only if "action" means just that - action and not some other objective being pursued under the guise of climate change.

btw, lol -
the Libs have gone away to check if even a 5% reduction is maybe too much
You're not gonna get much "action" with that attitude

PS and that goes for all the associated pollutions/pollutants, CO2 included. - to say nothing of denying the world a "new mindset" towards cleaner greener, more forest preservation, etc .

 

[2020hindsight]

( ... initially , till others come on board etc etc ) ...

and that applies both to other Aussies, (in the interests of political survival)
and also other countries (in the interests of long term dramatic action).

btw, I have tremendous respect for the Chinese - their responsibility in introducing the one-child policy - to self-regulate whereby they have reduced their population by about 300,000,000 of what it could have been - or the population of the entire USA.

 

[2020hindsight]

LCL
...
As for the "outliers" question ...
as I've said before, anyone (as I believe I've heard Andrew Bolt proclaim) that says that global warming stopped in 1998 , been getting cooler since etc - when 1998 was a serious El Niño spike year - is talking nonsense.

Forget bad science - it's "spinning the stats" as only the best (or worst) policians would even attempt.

....
regression analysis maybe?

 

[Julia]

Action.

But only if "action" means just that - action and not some other objective being pursued under the guise of climate change.

I'm not convinced on the science, but to the extent that we can reduce fossil fuel use without too much disruption we ought to do it. Fossil fuels will run out eventually anyway so in the long term we're going renewable whether we like it or not.

Cut emissions? Yes.

Implement an economic treaty under the guise of climate change that actually results in higher emissions? No.

If the so called high polluters, e.g. aluminium industry, wish to continue without change, as I understand it they can do this, simply buying carbon credits. Then if this renders their business non-viable in Australia, they say they will just move offshore where no such scheme is in place.
If this is correct, then I am mystified as to how any benefit will accrue to any global emissions situation.
If it's wrong, then I'd appreciate a detailed explanation from someone who knows how it all works (seems very few people can claim this at this stage) explaining how the proposed system is going to bring about whatever benefits are sought.

 

[basilio]

Quote:
Originally Posted by basilio View Post
What is the worst thing that can happen regarding Climate Change?

We have gone back and forth on the ins and outs of climate change. We have probably agreed that we can't be certain about what will happen. The clearest fact is that by continuing to debate the issue we end up doing nothing about it and facing whatever consequence occurs.

There is a particularly excellent argument on YOU Tube which doesn't try to convince anyone of the certainty of Climate Change but does show that the safest course is to act furiously as if the scientists are right.

How does the argument go ? Put simply if climate change is crock of sxxx but we plough billions into renewable energy, changes in lifestyle , business upheaval ect the possible worst consequences could be a global depression, poverty and so on.

However if climate change is real and we don't take action then the consequences will be even more disastrous than simply a global depression. We are talking the full catastrophe. Sunk cities, destroyed landscapes, floods, droughts, total collapse.

The conversation doesn't attempt to prove or disprove the science behind global warming. It just gives us a clear understanding of the choices we face and the consequences of action or inaction.

It is only 10 minutes long. Whatever your views on the science of the issue the logic of how to approach the situation is worth considering. I'd be interested to hear responses.

Cheers



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ
Fundamentally, what I'm worried about most is that we end up with BOTH scenarios.

1. Australia acts to cut emissions and ends up with scenario 1 for this country.

2. The world as a whole continues to emit more and more CO2 thus bringing about scenario 2 for the whole planet, including Australia and others who did act.

How realistic is this scenario? It is the exact path we're following right now. Emissions continue to rise and will do so even if the various agreements to stop it are implemented. So scenario 2 is highly likely if the science is right. Meanwhile various groups are proposing that we seriously risk scenario 1 as well.

I can see your point Smurf. If there isn't an absolutely committed total action on reducing CO2 then early movers could face economic problems and still cop it in the neck from general global warming.

I'd like to suggest another possibility. If we accept, with good reason, that the worlds supply of fossil fuels are peaking and will go into rapid decline in the near future (See Dec 2008 IEA Energy report) then we have to move to renewable energies ASAP if only to avoid the disaster of a country with severe energy shortages.

IF along the way we implemented best energy practices in homes, industry and commerce we could save a lot of money, a lot of CO2 and reduce the need for some of the new renewable energy sources. Wouldn't these actions result in a net benefit to the country?

IF we also had a long, hard look at our consumption patterns and decided that in fact we can quite easily live happily without changing our cars, kitchens, clothes and electronic toys with each season - well the savings would mount up.

And lets not even consider how much resources are thrown at military toys ..

One would see in effect a "war" economy or an economy of international emergency.., It's focus would be on re engineering a world based on sustainable consumption, renewable energy and renewable technologies.

If there was even a 10% chance that the effects of Global Warming and Peak Oil were going to effectively destroy life as we know it what are our other options?

As noted in an earlier post Plan3.0 B by Lester Brown is not a bad start.

"The Geography of Hope" by Chris Turner is also an inspiring and practical book on the subject.

What have we got to lose?

IEA calls for “Clean Energy New Deal”
At the UN climate talks (COP14) in Poznan, Poland, IEA Executive Director Nobuo Tanaka called for a “clean energy new deal,” saying that countries must act now to develop renewable energies and make traditional energy sources more efficient, such as capturing carbon released by coal-burning power plants. “It’s not an exaggeration to say the world stands at a crossroads on climate change. The science is clear – action is urgently needed,” Mr. Tanaka added.

 

[spooly74]

“It’s not an exaggeration to say the world stands at a crossroads on climate change. The science is clear – action is urgently needed,” Mr. Tanaka added.

Laughable.

Here is another beauty from the head of the IPCC last week.

Too late? Why scientists say we should expect the worst

"What the IPCC produces is not based on two years of literature, but 30 or 40 years of literature. We're not dealing with short-term weather changes, we're talking about major changes in our climate system. I refuse to accept that a few papers are in any way going to influence the long-term projections the IPCC has come up with."

Even funnier considering he comments were made in response to Jim Hansen and not a climate skeptic.

Meanwhile back on Earth.

As Ice Melts, Antarctic Bedrock Is on the Move
As ice melts away from Antarctica, parts of the continental bedrock are rising in response -- and other parts are sinking, scientists have discovered.

The finding will give much needed perspective to satellite instruments that measure ice loss on the continent, and help improve estimates of future sea level rise.

http://www.physorg.com/news148563736.html

Earth has warmed 0.4 C in 30 years
A map of Earth's climate changes since December 1, 1978, (when satellite sensors started tracking the climate) doesn't show a uniform global warming. It looks more like a thermometer: Hot at the top, cold at the bottom and varying degrees of warm in the middle.

This is a pattern of warming not forecast by any of the major global climate models.

http://www.physorg.com/news148239677.html

 

[Smurf1976]

If the so called high polluters, e.g. aluminium industry, wish to continue without change, as I understand it they can do this, simply buying carbon credits. Then if this renders their business non-viable in Australia, they say they will just move offshore where no such scheme is in place.
If this is correct, then I am mystified as to how any benefit will accrue to any global emissions situation.

That is precisely the situation.

I would support reasonable action if this outcome were precluded somehow. The only ways I can think of to achieve that is either ALL countries are bound by the SAME requirements (highly unlikely given the economic incentive to cheat) or we introduce tariffs on practically everything and drop the whole globalisation idea.

The electricity market for heavy industry is a lot more competitive than most realise. It's not Victoria competing with Tasmania as many seem to think. Nor is it power company A competing with power company B. It's international and has been for a century.

Qld is really the only competitive Australian state now that NSW, Vic and Tas are effectively out of the game. 40 years ago the Qld power industry was tiny and fragmented - Tas and SA were both ahead of Qld in absolute terms. Within 5 years Qld is headed to become the biggest producer of electricity in Australia, most of it heading straight into heavy industry were prices are determined by international markets. And all that's based on cheap black coal.

The ONLY reason for the ferro alloy smelter in Tas is cheap power. There's no other reason it was ever built in Tas - the non-electricity raw materials aren't produced locally. It exports to about 70 countries.

The ONLY reason for the aluminium smelters in Tas, Vic and NSW is cheap power. They don't mine bauxite there and there's no other advantage apart from historically abundant cheap electricity. Qld does mine bauxite, but the smelters are nowhere near the mine - they're where the cheap power is.

Lack of cheap electricity is why WA and the NT, both of which do mine bauxite, do not have any aluminium smelters.

That electricity became uncompetitive is why Japan shut down its electricity-intensive industries during the 1980's. That industry ended up being transferred largely to Australia.

That electricity became uncompetitive is why Tasmania's industry and economy stagnated after the mid-1980's. That industry ended up being transferred largely to South America and South Africa.

Much the same with any other heavy industry. You build the plant wherever electricity is cheap and move it if the situation changes. Labour isn't the major cost so that doesn't matter too much, hence it was soaring power prices and not labour rates that saw the recent demise of many energy intensive industries in the US.

 

[Aussiejeff]

well said smurf –
except that a small step is all we might be able to achieve (at first , initially , till others come on board etc etc )

There is also the distinct possibility that small steps WON'T make any significant change to emissions but WILL still cause some economic and social pain - in which case, those "still to come on board" will actually be much more dissuaded to do so!

Why bother if small steps don't actually achieve a worthwhile emissions reduction? A classic chicken and the egg scenario.... open to endless debate (ie MORE hot air and NO meaningful action).

The one overruling emotion in all this is human GREED. The whole planet's population (whether rich or poor) has an underlying greed for power, wealth, status, material well-being etc, etc. That has held true since prehistoric times and continues unabated for now and for as long into the future as the human race manages to exist.

Over millenia, civilisations have been totally based on populations greedily "advancing" their personal standards of living and material well-being - usually at the expense of anything (other populations or even Mother Nature) that may stand in their way. I read plenty of history and I see nothing has basically changed in that regard. Lots of philosophy on how to "improve humankind's relationship with each other and the planet", but ultimately, very little to show for it.

Smurf rightly raises the factor of "over-population". To which many might *cringe* and put their fingers in their ears. Well, China's current birth rate is between 1-2 per woman and the situation we find ourselves in is bad enough. Well, where do we think the planet would be right now if China had maintained it's 1969 birth rate level of 6 children per woman??!!

What a sacrifice they have made! Yet, we still point the finger at China and say "they should do more". Hmmm. Fair? Or just greedy for maintaining our little patch the way WE want it - not how other nations might like to see us? No surprise then that every population has the same basic feelings about everyone else!

Which brings me to the easy answer.

Obviously, it is 42.

 

[2020hindsight]

"action is urgently needed" = Laughable.

"[Jim Hansen's paper, in which he "suggested a joint review by Britain's Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences of all research findings since the IPCC report.comment"- with a view to upgrading them in terms of the dangers we face] = Even funnier ...

Gee Spooly, what do you want them to do ? m8,
When they say "let's act" it's laughable
When they say "let's accept some limitations on how much we can achieve" it's even funnier.

Even without the new information there was enough to make most policy makers think that urgent action was absolutely essential

Actually that's a great article you quote from ... I recommend everyone read it . Here are just some of the other possible excerpts :-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environme...enhagen-global-warming-targets-climate-change

Too late? Why scientists say we should expect the worst

As ministers and officials gather in Poznan one year ahead of the Copenhagen summit on global warming, the second part of a major series looks at the crucial issue of targets
David Adam , The Guardian, Tuesday 9 December 2008

At a high-level academic conference on global warming at Exeter University this summer, climate scientist Kevin Anderson stood before his expert audience and contemplated a strange feeling. He wanted to be wrong. Many of those in the room who knew what he was about to say felt the same. His conclusions had already caused a stir in scientific and political circles. Even committed green campaigners said the implications left them terrified.

Anderson, an expert at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at Manchester University, was about to send the gloomiest dispatch yet from the frontline of the war against climate change.

Despite the ... scientific warnings, the media headlines and the corporate promises, he would say, carbon emissions were soaring way out of control - far above even the bleak scenarios considered by last year's report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Stern review. The battle against dangerous climate change had been lost, and the world needed to prepare for things to get very, very bad.

"As an academic I wanted to be told that it was a very good piece of work and that the conclusions were sound," Anderson said. "But as a human being I desperately wanted someone to point out a mistake, and to tell me we had got it completely wrong."

Nobody did. The cream of the UK climate science community sat in stunned silence as Anderson pointed out that carbon emissions since 2000 have risen much faster than anyone thought possible, driven mainly by the coal-fuelled economic boom in the developing world. So much extra pollution is being pumped out, he said, that most of the climate targets debated by politicians and campaigners are fanciful at best, and "dangerously misguided" at worst.

... he said it was "improbable" that levels could now be restricted to 650 parts per million (ppm).

...At 650ppm, the same fuzzy science says the world would face a catastrophic 4C average rise. And even that bleak future, Anderson said, could only be achieved if rich countries adopted "draconian emission reductions within a decade". Only an unprecedented "planned economic recession" might be enough. The current financial woes would not come close.

Lost cause ... more vote for 650ppm than 450ppm as the more likely outcome.

Bob Watson, chief scientist at the Environment Department and a former head of the IPCC, warned this year that the world needed to prepare for a 4C rise, which would wipe out hundreds of species, bring extreme food and water shortages in vulnerable countries and cause floods that would displace hundreds of millions of people.

..."We must alert everybody that at the moment we're at the very top end of the worst case [emissions] scenario. I think we should be striving for 450 [ppm] but I think we should be prepared that 550 [ppm] is a more likely outcome." Hitting the 450ppm target, he said, would be "unbelievably difficult".

Garnaut gets a mention:-

... risk a failure to agree that "would haunt humanity until the end of time".

...Garnaut :- "The awful arithmetic means that exclusively focusing on a 450ppm outcome, at this moment, could end up providing another reason for not reaching an international agreement to reduce emissions. In the meantime, the cost of excessive focus on an unlikely goal could consign to history any opportunity to lock in an agreement for stabilising at 550ppm - a more modest, but still difficult, international outcome. An effective agreement around 550ppm would be vastly superior to continuation of business as usual."

Henry Derwent, former head of the UK's international climate negotiating team and now president of the International Emissions Trading Association, said a new climate treaty was unlikely to include a stabilisation goal - either 450ppm or 550ppm.

"You've got to avoid talking and thinking in those terms because otherwise the politics reaches a dead end," he said. Many small island states are predicted to be swamped by rising seas with global warming triggered by carbon levels as low as 400ppm. "It's really difficult for countries to sign up to something that loses them half their territory. It's not going to work."

A new agreement in Copenhagen should concentrate instead on shorter term targets, such as firm emission reductions by 2020, he said.

And back to that reference to Jim Hansen ...

Earlier this year, Jim Hansen, senior climate scientist with Nasa, published a paper that said the world's carbon targets needed to be urgently revised ... He used reconstructions of the Earth's past climate to show that a target of 350ppm, significantly below where we are today, is needed to "preserve a planet similar to that on which civilisation developed and to which life on Earth is adapted". Hansen has suggested a joint review by Britain's Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences of all research findings since the IPCC report. Rajendra Pachauri, who chairs the IPCC, argues that suggestions the IPCC report is out of date is "not a valid position at all".

He said: "What the IPCC produces is not based on two years of literature, but 30 or 40 years of literature. We're not dealing with short-term weather changes, we're talking about major changes in our climate system. I refuse to accept that a few papers are in any way going to influence the long-term projections the IPCC has come up with."

At Defra, Watson said: "Even without the new information there was enough to make most policy makers think that urgent action was absolutely essential. The new information only strengthens that and pushes it even harder. It was already very urgent to start with. It's now become very, very urgent."

 

[2020hindsight]

There is also the distinct possibility that small steps WON'T make any significant change to emissions but WILL still cause some economic and social pain

AJ
Have a read of that article ...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environme...enhagen-global-warming-targets-climate-change
Here's an excerpt :-Garnaut on the same topic (trying to be realistic, but you're right, we're not doing nearly enough). :-

It says developed nations including Britain, the US and Australia, would have to slash carbon dioxide emissions by 5% each year over the next decade to hit the 450ppm target. Britain's Climate Change Act 2008, the most ambitious legislation of its kind in the world, calls for reductions of about 3% each year to 2050.

Garnaut, a professorial fellow in economics at Melbourne University, said: "Achieving the objective of 450ppm would require tighter constraints on emissions than now seem likely in the period to 2020 ... The only alternative would be to impose even tighter constraints on developing countries from 2013, and that does not appear to be realistic at this time."

The report adds: "The awful arithmetic means that exclusively focusing on a 450ppm outcome, at this moment, could end up providing another reason for not reaching an international agreement to reduce emissions. In the meantime, the cost of excessive focus on an unlikely goal could consign to history any opportunity to lock in an agreement for stabilising at 550ppm - a more modest, but still difficult, international outcome. An effective agreement around 550ppm would be vastly superior to continuation of business as usual."

 

[wayneL]

Let's face it. The developing world ain't going to cut back on pollution, and there's billions of them.

Ergo, nothing we do is going to make a difference. Why should we trash our economies if it won't make a difference?

And why should I have anxiety about it? I had the foresight not to have children. Most importantly, why should I stand being preached at by hypocrites.

**** it, I'm pulling up the ladder Jack. I'm going shopping for decent 4x4 (lot's of cheap X5s going cheap from ex BTL magnates at the mo.) and I'm cranking up the central heating... and I'm getting rid of those stupid flouro bulbs, they're sh!te.

I'm now in favour of the extra lane on the M25 and the new runway at Heathrow. I want to fly to Paris etc several times a year.

Hasta la vista baby.

 

[2020hindsight]

Let's face it. The developing world ain't going to cut back on pollution, and there's billions of them.

Ergo, nothing we do is going to make a difference. Why should we trash our economies if it won't make a difference?

And why should I have anxiety about it? I had the foresight not to have children. Most importantly, why should I stand being preached at by hypocrites.

**** it, I'm pulling up the ladder Jack. I'm going shopping for decent 4x4 (lot's of cheap X5s going cheap from ex BTL magnates at the mo.) and I'm cranking up the central heating... and I'm getting rid of those stupid flouro bulbs, they're sh!te.

I'm now in favour of the extra lane on the M25 and the new runway at Heathrow. I want to fly to Paris etc several times a year.

Hasta la vista baby.

so you've managed to stop laughing at the science yet wayne?