´óÏó´«Ã½

so we are still expected to buy the bogus narrative as people with vested interests try to 'lock in' carbon 'trading' and so get rich quick?

Let's get a perspective on this. It was from my work for a UN Environment and Development report the agenda of the 2005 G8 of climate change and Africa was derived.

This came from my risk assessment that climate change was a greater threat than terrorism. The Chief Scientist Sir David King gave it global publicity a year later, but didn't say I was the author.

Now I came up with the risk assessment in the build up to the war in Iraq. I didn't think it would be a good idea. So I said climate change was a bigger problem ie forget dropping bombs on Iraq.

Now because the media didn't want to pop the Chief Scientists bubble, they didn't want the public to know I was the author. I just used climate change as an example of the environmental challenge no the entirety. I didn't just link it to CO2 emissions and most certainly had nothing to do with carbon trading.

It's all got a bit out of control, hasn't it?

What should have happened is for the media to have followed some accepted scientific methodology and etiquette, and spoken to the original author. That is me.

But the media didn't and we have this mess of oily rags and lack of engineers.

Let's hope at Copenhagen nothing gets decided. Then we can all take a deep breath and do the job properly. The media could even speak to me. They might not like what I say. But sometimes truth hurts, and you can't spin out of the unavoidable.

Celtic Lion

"It is all something of a chess game -all the pieces have to be in the right place for the game to be won."

No I don't think it is. This is part of the problem. Together with all this rhetoric of the 'fight against global warming' 'the war on climate change'.

It is not a game, a battle, a fight or a war. People do not go into a pet shop and ask for a book on the battle of owning a puppy, or the fight in keeping goldfish, or go to Halfords and ask for something on making war on your Renault.

No we ask for caring or looking after a puppy or goldfish, or care and maintenance of a car. Anyone who using fight, battle or war in reference to climate change or running a planet, or thinks it's a game with sides, does not understand the problem. So by default, apart from some random stab in the dark, cannot come up with answers or solutions to managing a planet on a journey to the future.

We have one planet and a long journey ahead of us if we decide to embark for the rest of the way. What we don't want is some attempt on how to look after this planet on that journey based on some trading floor madness mentality that last year crashed something as simple as an economic system.

We can only hope nothing is achieved or agreed in Copenhagen. (It is better to have no decisions rather than a bad or wrong ones.) Then after the craziness has subsided, perhaps then we can do the job properly.

Celtic Lion

..Then after the craziness has subsided, perhaps then we can do the job properly...

people see a pot of money [our money] and will use any argument as a tin opener. i can't see that changing anytime soon.

one of the biggest beneficiaries of our free cash has been china. so they shout the loudest.

Never mind, Obama will walk across the North Sea and all will be well...NOT..

That's what I'm waiting for, Susan.

For the World Leaders to get together first, have a few informal chats whether over coffee, beer, wine or champagne, then negotiate at the table and announce their decision on how to move out of the chaos and then move forward, etc. Hopefully!

Monika

COPENHAGEN WILL BE A HISTORIC SUCCESS GOING FORWARD.

What joy to see Limited Ed saying: "I have no idea what's going on" and Hilary the Oik (does Wedgie give him one, for all that glottal stopping?) spouts his usual claptrap. I notice Hilary and Ed not only both do the glottal thing, but are now both 'optimistic'. So, under Brown's inspired leadership, the world is saved again. (Of course, what they fail to realise is God will have dun it, in response to Tony's prayers.)

In the meantime, Eco Man is due to do that crass experiment with two bottles and two lights. I wonder if Susan will drop in to tell him his experiment is badly designed? Poignantly, it is the lack of TWO Earths, that negates all the AGW certainty, because we cannot run a 'control'.

I have always loathed science fiction (with the exception of Douglas Adams) BECAUSE THE SCIENCE IS SO BAD, but we are deeply mired in science fiction, and the science is worse than ever. .

THE BLAIR PHENOMENON

What did Tony's speech add? Who wrote it? Who invited him? Was he paid?
Summits and speeches eh?

Makes you glad when Limited Ed shambles into view.

7. At 00:30am on 15 Dec 2009, barriesingleton Poignantly, it is the lack of TWO Earths, that negates all the AGW certainty, because we cannot run a 'control'.

That is one heck of a problem, I do concede.

Especially as so much hinges on measurement to assess effects. This works.. that's a waste.

But I still await much by way of explanation of how this is supposed to happen, other than shoveling vast amounts of cash from one place to another in hope of arresting a global 'it'.