| Submit your comments on this article |
| International-UN-NGOs |
| Climate Change - Blair Suggests Novel Idea: "sound, rational science" |
| 2005-11-01 |
| Talks to open on climate change Field trip! A two-day meeting of energy and environment ministers from 20 nations opens in London on Tuesday. The focus will be on curbing climate change through technology rather than binding international agreements. The British government, which hosts the talks as the current holder of the G8 presidency, may unveil a new domestic initiative on biofuels. The meeting brings the G8 group of industrialised countries alongside major developing world nations. Tech instead of idiot gauge rules. Okaaay... Oh, and the ankle-biters will be there too. Goody. The discussions follow the climate agreement drawn up at July's G8 summit in Gleneagles, which emphasised the importance of climate-friendly technologies such as clean coal, nuclear power and renewables. Instead of destructive scams. Thanks to whom, may I ask? Wha? Couldn't quite hear you, Beeb. Who has injected a modicum of intelligence into this issue in lieu of the Ponzi schemes of fellow TranziBoy Maurice Strong and the UN Kleptocrats? End of Kyoto? At the weekend, Prime Minister Tony Blair called in a newspaper article for a new international consensus on tackling climate change built around "sound, rational science". While describing the United Nations as the "only forum in which formal negotiations on future international commitments take place", he has in recent weeks downplayed the impact of the Kyoto Protocol. Mr Blair has expressed doubts that there will ever be another treaty which sets mandatory, binding targets on greenhouse gas emissions. Lol, who'da thunk it, eh? Science, real science. And only in the UN, huh? LOL - this meeting is happening in London, no, Tony? Subtle, but no joy, TranziBoy - the UN isn't necessary at all. For anything. Major developing countries such as India and China are also known to be sceptical about a "child-of-Kyoto" deal. But that's not noblesse oblige, Beeb - that's cold hard self-interest economics. The European Union has been leading discussions with both on transferring clean technology as an alternative way to bring emissions down. Have they, now? Well that's comforting... But it seems they were leading when the Kyoto Kool Aid was passed around as the End of the World cure, too... Essential targets Many opposition politicians and environmental groups are critical of this approach, saying that mandatory targets are the best way forward. "Mr Blair cannot claim to take the environment seriously unless he secures an agreement from the G8 that mandatory national targets are essential to progress," said Liberal Democrat environment spokesman Norman Baker. "It is all very well for the government to trumpet the merits of technology in reducing carbon emissions, but it simply isn't enough; we need robust, measurable targets, not just vague aspirations." Lol. Still flailing away, we see. Sell it, Beeb! Wannabee wankercrats and their mouthpieces are never far apart - and you can never resist presenting the same lame BS as equivalent. The so-called G20 discussions, hosted by Defra and the DTI - the UK government's environment and industry departments - are one element in what Mr Blair called a "potentially crucial week in the fight against climate change". UK government agencies will also present details of a number of technological approaches to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Still presenting half-baked theory as fact. The spin never ends at the BBC. Later this week, more than 40 governments will take part alongside business leaders in other London negotiations aimed at improving energy efficiency. Except for lifting the veil of irrationality regards nuclear power that might be achieved here, long overdue and necessary to counteract the fear-mongerers, that other meeting actually sounds more promising, heh. |
| Posted by:.com |
| #11 Well, they could always send Teddy Kennedy on a week long bender and have him piss on the sun. Might put it out. Either way, if it gets him off the planet, I'm for it. |
| Posted by: Silentbrick 2005-11-01 16:58 |
| #10 Kyoto was always a fraud. At its highest and best even if the US signed it could only slow global warming by 2/10ths of a degree Celcius by 2050. Global warming is happening but there is NO way to stop it. So the best we can do is continue as we are but spend money on levees, drainage ditches, irrigation systems for areas that will lose rainfall, introduce strict building codes and ensure all dwellings conform to them, dig more dams, in short: prepare for it ! |
| Posted by: anon1 2005-11-01 13:06 |
| #9 ah waterworld, one of my favourite films,classic. |
| Posted by: Shep UK 2005-11-01 12:29 |
| #8 When all else fails, Blame it on Sunspots... CO2? I am soooooooooooooo confused.... Ice Age II or Waterworld? |
| Posted by: BigEd 2005-11-01 11:38 |
| #7 RJ, I know about the "problem" on Mars (it's gotta be those little vehicles using unleaded) but, I want to know if there is ANY scientifically arguable theory as to how a little bit of CO2 can warm the whole F****ng planet! Just read "State of Fear", and while I had seen most all of the research before, Crichton really asks the questions in a very clear, pointed way. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2005-11-01 09:56 |
| #6 Solar activity cycles not CO2. But nobody gets study grants and socio-power by trying to control the sun |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-11-01 09:55 |
| #5 "News" dammit, (Mote Kauphy needed, Slurp, Ahhh) |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2005-11-01 08:26 |
| #4 #2 I know that there are some Global Warming afficianados out there, so could one of you answer a serious question for me? Serious answer, the recent discovery that "Global Warming" complete with Icecap melting ON THE PLANET MARS, has pretty well shot the "Man made pollutants and greenhouse gasses" hysteria in the nuts. Look for a quiet vanishing of any serious "Hews" reports as the whole silly idea is ignored and forgotten by the MSM. (Who? Us? we didn't believe it in the first place.) Yeah, right. |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2005-11-01 08:23 |
| #3 Which is why Prince Chuckles is bloviating in the US this week, rather than learning from the scientists back in London. |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2005-11-01 08:04 |
| #2 I know that there are some Global Warming afficianados out there, so could one of you answer a serious question for me? I understand the C02 is a gas that can increase warmth by reflecting heat yadda yadda, but, my question is, by what mechanism can the tiny amount (relatively) of extra CO2 cause such large increases in temp.? IIRC the increase is on the order of 60 parts per million. So, by what mechanism can so little do so much? Oh yeah, BTW, since CO2 is heavier than air, why doesn't it just sink and get "eaten" up by plants and oceans? |
| Posted by: AlanC 2005-11-01 08:03 |
| #1 While sound rational science makes sense it doesn't get the press that unsound irrational caterwalling does. |
| Posted by: Cheaderhead 2005-11-01 06:49 |