Copenhagen stalls decision on catastrophic climate change for six years
The key decision on preventing catastrophic climate change will be delayed for up to six years if the Copenhagen summit delivers a compromise deal which ignores advice from the UN’s science body.
World leaders will not agree on the emissions cuts recommended by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and are likely instead to commit to reviewing them in 2015 or 2016
President Obama has offered to cut US emissions by 4 per cent on 1990 levels by 2020
9 Comments
(Displaying 1-9)
mike alker wrote:
It is good to step back and view new evidence.
The science is obviously flawed. I don't wish to go into who it will benefit, but it was obviously some lobbying group or groups. Perhaps when the science get back on track then they may consider having to name interested donators so we can all get a reasonable point of view.
I am embaressed at the fact it was British scientists that corrupted the evidence to promote a political agenda and apologise to the rest of the world. I thought British scientists were at least honest. Obviously I need to rethink my patriotism.
I have rethought the whole thing and read into many other articles and came to the conclusion that i need to know a lot more than I do before I accept more of this global warming non entity.
December 14, 2009 12:38 AM GMT on community.timesonline.co.uk Recommend? (5) Report Abuse
Permalink
Jeff London wrote:
If you were the leader of a developed country, you would want to put off climate change prevention for as long as possible, especially when in an economic recession. Having seen the temperature projections, both if action was taken or not, it is clear that the developed countries will cope better and survive long after the developing countries have perished/suffered the brunt of it. Maybe this is the West's unspoken answer to population growth?
December 14, 2009 12:16 AM GMT on community.timesonline.co.uk Recommend? (2) Report Abuse
Permalink
Fab KD wrote:
@John Andrew
Please, elevate the quality of the comments that we should see in a newspaper as respectable as The Times. Before talking about the CRU emails, read them in full details to see where the so called hoax is. That is, for every of the few out of thousands emails that are being used as evidence, look at what they really mean in the context they were written.
And please, do not use this ice-age prediction made in the 70s. This theory was mostly fuelled by media, represented only the view of a few scientists and was quickly discredited by the scientific community.
December 14, 2009 12:14 AM GMT on community.timesonline.co.uk Recommend? (4) Report Abuse
Permalink
James Mailer wrote:
So actually the arrival of the four horsemen of the apocalypse is at least another few years away?
Comedy GOLD!
Come on everyone, the gig's up. Day after day after day, for about a month now, commentators here have completely shreded the arguments (sorry, "science"!) of the AGW fantasists.
It's time to bring this undignified farce to an end please.
December 13, 2009 11:57 PM GMT on community.timesonline.co.uk Recommend? (12) Report Abuse
Permalink
Joseph Kellie wrote:
We are telling countries that are developing that we have damaged the environment and if you get flooded etc it is our fault. Now funny enough these same countries are demanding compensation. The climate is changing but the evidence it is largly man made is dubious and in question. Peer review needs to be done properly and openly, no more hiding data that may disprove the theory, no more stiffling disenters and above all publish onto the web for all to see.
Many mathematicians are dismayed at the level of inaccuracies and assumptions in the current model.
December 13, 2009 11:36 PM GMT on community.timesonline.co.uk Recommend? (12) Report Abuse
Permalink
John Andrew wrote:
well im happy to say im pleased they stalled on making a final decision!, the evidence is starting to crumble with the emails of many scientists being released, predictions being changed weekly! and of corse the support from many leaders of the "green" movement starting to fade away like Al Gore who praticalyy ivented the whole theory, and of corse the faliure of the US president not turning up until the final day.
well there goes another scam to the history books, just think in thirty years time we will be teaching this stuff in history lessons, well either that or trying to cover it up like that "global ice age" they predicted in the 70's what happend to that, they said that by 2010 we will be in over 100ft of ice! just think if we had acted on that where would be be now?
December 13, 2009 11:21 PM GMT on community.timesonline.co.uk Recommend? (11) Report Abuse
Permalink
Oscar Ernst wrote:
This could be good if by 2016 the review can be made based in scientific research we can trust.
December 13, 2009 11:19 PM GMT on community.timesonline.co.uk Recommend? (11) Report Abuse
Permalink
P V wrote:
Wasn't it Nero who fiddled whilst Rome was burning?
Seems like some things never change.
We'll all be paddling to work in canoes by the time the World leaders agree on anything.
December 13, 2009 11:18 PM GMT on community.timesonline.co.uk Recommend? (3) Report Abuse
Permalink
Stuart David wrote:
Wow, we are told with a straight face that catastrophic climate change can be prevented by politicians.
December 13, 2009 11:14 PM GMT on community.timesonline.co.uk Recommend? (14)
Copenhagen stalls decision on catastrophic climate change for six years