This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Predictions for Copenhagen

Predictions for Copenhagen - Dec 2009 ?

  • a) serious and meaningful targets to reduce CO2e for 2050 - by say 80% of 1990

    Votes: 2 10.0%

  • b) serious attempt to start the reduction process - say 50% of 1990

    Votes: 2 10.0%

  • c) targets seriously tempered by the financial crisis - but (at least) stall CO2e at 1990 levels

    Votes: 3 15.0%

  • d) the selfish gene of some developed countries seriously limits the effectiveness of the convention

    Votes: 6 30.0%

  • e) the selfish gene of the developing countries seriously limits the effectiveness of the convention

    Votes: 3 15.0%

  • f) other

    Votes: 4 20.0%
  • Total voters
    20
  • Poll closed .
Jump to new
You left out;

g) nothing they can do at Copenhagen can have any effect on climate change
 
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.
 
Just noticed 2020's chart stops at 1992ish.

Data mining.
 
wayneL said:
Wikipedia is about the last place I'd look for accurate info on anything. Handy as a primer, but that's it.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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!
 
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)
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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

gg
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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 said:
wtf is Copenhagen.

For Aussies.

wtf is it?

gg
Click to expand...
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.
 

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


Cold and wet.:

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

Attachments

  • doub dissolution.jpg
    67.8 KB · Views: 97
I predict that the Republican Rudd will make sure that he get's publicity posing with Princess Mary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

February 2025
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
6K
ducati916
Demand for Gold reaches levels never seen before!
Replies
1
Views
3K
joeyr46
J
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...