Views and debates on climate change policy
Home | Panelists | Staff Blog | RSS

THE QUESTION

Reactions from Copenhagen (Week 1)

As the United Nations begins its 15th annual conference on climate change, what are the sights, sounds and reactions to decisions or announcements? Our panelists weigh in on the international policy debates.

Are you in Copenhagen? Post your own thoughts in the comments section.

Posted by Washington Post Editor on December 10, 2009 7:00 AM
FEATURED COMMENTS

Make a Comment  |  All Comments (33)

ALL COMMENTS (33)
mike85 Author Profile Page :
 

This morning the British news papers said that the head on the UN's IPCC is set to personally make more than $100MM if the European Union agrees to the IPCC proposal.

That is $100,000,000 he will make for using altered and faked data to come up with IPCC's global warming proposal. How much will Obama make under the table for getting Cap & Trade passed?

IT IS ALL ABOUT MONEY. Save the planet my arse!

 
snptr2000 Author Profile Page :
 

Global warming is a reality and a threat to all nations including the developed nations. It seems that people in USA are not able to realize about climate change its side effects on human living in the coming decades. People are adapted to luxuries and comforts of modern technologies and they are not at all ready to accept the side effects of these technologies on the environment. Who are the sufferers of this negligence? The entire human race should face difficulties in the future without any rich or poor because environmental changes are global without any geographical barriers.
Actually, there is a need for focus on solar thermal and solar photovoltaic electicity generation techniques to produce electricity at a lower cost. Now through present technologies electricity generation by solar thermal or solar photovoltaic is quite high, but advanced research it could be brought down. By mass production of solar thermal and solar photovoltaic electricity generation equipments also the production cost coudl be brought down. We should concentrate efforts on this field which is definitely good for the entire mankind. There is a need to cut the defence budget by world's nations and put those funds to develop newer and clean energy technologies including solar thermal and solar photovoltaic electricity. There is also need to develop to use hydrogen in vehicles as a source of energy. Once that technology develops, hydrogen can be produced using solar thermal or solar photovoltaic electricity which is a clean resource.

 
pgr88 Author Profile Page :
 

On December 17th, Copenhagen is expected to break its record low for the day - by 7 Degrees Celsius. But don't worry, the neo-Communists and Evangelical Environmentalists will be sure to keep the Kool-Aid nice and warm!

 
cburbank Author Profile Page :
 

It isn't just CRU and NASA the fake data is coming from..
The New Zealand Government's chief climate advisory unit NIWA is under fire for allegedly massaging raw climate data to show a global warming trend that wasn't there.

The scandal breaks as fears grow worldwide that corruption of climate science is not confined to just Britain's CRU climate research centre.

In New Zealand's case, the figures published on NIWA's [the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric research] website suggest a strong warming trend in New Zealand over the past century:
Yet data that was collected does not in actuality support this warming trend, just the opposite.

 
infantry11b4faus Author Profile Page :
 

if its gotten so darn warm then why has my house on the beach still have the same amound of sand in front of it?
the oceans have not risen - hawaii has not flooded.
global warming is a fake!

 
Parker1227 Author Profile Page :
 

Anyone who cares about science, and the importance of not whoring science to a "cause", needs to read the leaked emails - and not just some leftist newspaper's interpretation (excuse making) of them.

These Top IPCC scientists (the ones who are the gate keepers for most of the raw data that ends up in the computer models), are shown to have a hideous disregard for scientific truth - unless that truth supports their global warming doctrine.

That the WaPost would try to sweep this under the rug just because it is embarrassing as heck to the Post and all the rest of the man-caused global warming cheerleaders, makes this whole fiasco a crime against science AND journalism.

These top IPCC scientists are caught discussing how to fudge the data to hide the truth about earth temperatures. They are shown expressing embarrassment over the lack of increase in (average) temps over the last decade, and conniving how to hide this in their charts.

And it is misleading to respond that we still have had X-number of hottest years during the last 10 years. Temps increased until about 1998 - which was one of the warmest years of the 20th century. And then temps roughly leveled off at that high level for the last 10 years - with some minor decrease. So it is possible for annual average temps to both, be in the top ten hottest category AND not have increased since the 1998 peak. Imagine a bell curve with a somewhat flattened top. We have been on that flattened top of the curve for the last 10 years. Temps high - but NOT going up.
This is a problem for AGW proponents. CO2 has continued rising but temps have not. So there must be some significant factor(s) that they missed in their modeling.
So it is reasonable to ask, what other factors have they missed which could also over-ride any man-caused influences?
And how long will this leveling off of temperatures last? And why should we trust IPCC estimates on THIS issue when they totally failed to predict the leveling off in the first place?
The answer seems very simple. The man-caused global warming movement is just that - a movement. It is an environmentalist movement first - and science second.

This has huge ramifications for society. If we cannot trust science, then what can we trust?

 
richard36 Author Profile Page :
 

The UN is fundamentally inept and shouldn't be trusted to do anything. To be frank, we should cut much of our funding to the UN and spend the money on worthwhile activities, without the useless overhead.

 
willwilsn Author Profile Page :
 

At last we have an administration willing to acknowledge facts. Nobody "supports" global warming, it just is, like the Earth orbits the Sun. Recently, it's taken place because humans released millions of years worth of buried carbon into the atmosphere for the cheap energy contained within.

Those of you more interested in science fiction, tune to the SciFi channel, or focus on a less-important topic for your stories.
For readers honestly trying to understand background facts, I've posted a graph of our energy use from various sources over the last two centuries (from the US DOE's 2006 Annual Energy Review) online at:

www.sciencetime.org/blog/?p=116

the reality of global warming and ecological consequences:

www.sciencetime.org/blog/?p=95

and increasing sea levels:

www.sciencetime.org/blog/?p=125

We use lots of energy, with too many emissions of greenhouse gases, and still have about 300 years worth of coal. Our concern is surviving a changing climate. We depend on the present climate for growing crops right where farms just happen to be. With climate change comes not just warming, but broader variations in things like last frost date, first frost date, and rainfall patterns. Food production depends on these climate measures. As the climate changes, insect pests and plant pathogens find new habitable areas of the globe, perhaps in these agricultural areas. Nobody can predict whether such things will happen, but if they do, and food production fails, I would call that a problem. So, what is an acceptable risk? How confident are you that no problems will arise? Humans experienced potato famines, changed eastern forests through release of the chestnut blight, and so on. Climate change brings on new risks. Are you comfortable with a 10% risk of agricultural collapse? 1%? 50%?

The sooner we find new, clean sources, the better.

Will Wilson

 
highkey11 Author Profile Page :
 

DAWN of the DEAD .... Global Warmers make up New, New Data ..

(AP) ZOMBIE "Global Warmers' wander aimlessly with no life cause ... in attempt to find new "Raw Data" to corroborate fictitious previous "correlated data" ...

-- Global Warmers team up with Scientologists ... and determine Space Aliens are causing the Global Cooling ... and stopping Global Warming

Vast herds of Global Warmers move to Oregon and live under Cows and inhale methane Gas to save the planet.

 
Aprogressiveindependent Author Profile Page :
 

Odd how some people confuse religious beliefs with historical facts. Actually given contemporary politics, hardly surprising.

 
vickie1 Author Profile Page :
 

Snobs, liars, criminals, immoral pieces of sh*@. Thats all I can say about this global warming BS.

 
fabco Author Profile Page :
 

What about nuclear? Nuclear technology we have today burns barely 1% of the fuel and generates tons of highly dangerous waste? Both of which are good reasons not to build any more of the antiquated solid fuel uranium burners, but what about other reactor designs and other fuel cycles?

Dr. Alvin Weinberg former head of Oak Ridge Laboratory in Tennessee invented the current Pressurized Light Water reactors we use today. However, he recognized their limitations and potential safety issues, and also made it his mission to develop a far better design that virtually nobody even knows about. It is truly a mind boggling thing, that nuclear engineers graduate every day without having heard about it, much less it's never being commercially developed.

It is called the Liquid Fluoride Molten Salt Reactor. It burns 100% of it's fuel, and produces a miniscule fraction of the waste produced by today's reactors eliminating the need for a Yucca Mountain to store it. In fact it can even burn the existing nuclear waste we don't know what to do with, thereby turning it from a problem into a resource. It produces no weapons grade material because it burns thorium instead of uranium, thereby producing no plutonium to worry about finding it's way into bombs. It can even produce more fuel than it consumes, thereby providing unlimited co2 free sustainable energy 24/7, not just when the sun shines or the wind blows. It is inherently safe, and meltdown proof.

This is a real solution to many of our pressing energy problems that deserves much more attention than it currently gets. It is currently listed as a Generation V reactor by DoE and gets little or no attention compared to far inferior Generation IV designs currently being developed. Which is very supprising, considering most of it's development issues were already solved in the 1950's.

Liquid Fluoride Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) Invented in the USA in 1954
Not yet commercialized, even after 2 successful MSRs were built & operated
Meltdown proof
Does not produce weapons grade plutonium
Has inherent nonproliferation features
Thousands of years of energy
Its wastes are simpler and less toxic than current nuclear wastes
Only hundreds of years of storage versus thousands for the current wastes and less than 1% of the volume.
Can burn the existing wastes!

 
infantry11b4faus Author Profile Page :
 

there has never been a time in the history of the world that the climate, or anything else, was not changing.
if its hotter now than in the past why cant we grow crops in greenland like the vikings did 1000 years ago.
why does it take heavy moving equipment to dig up viking graves that were dug with simple hand tools. the permafrost is more than 8 feet deep in those locations.
the climate will always change and people have nothing to do with it - so sell your snake oil to someone else - im not buying - but i have this bridge to sell you if you want it.

 
-PBL- Author Profile Page :
 

Congress has power of the purse. Lisa Jackson and the EPA can be defunded. The EPA budget can be cut to 1 dollar a year. It would make sense for Ms. Jackson to meet with republicans before she goes too far out on a limb. 2010 could change the balance in congress. Pelosi could be replaced with Boehner the republican. I can imagine Lisa jacksons' reign at EPA would be clipped short. If EPA gets to far left, congress would just cut it's budget so much that EPA would be just a group of over paid civil servants occupying desks and drawing paychecks, while Obama is president.

 
peggydlhk Author Profile Page :
 

Everyone seems to know what to do except the people who are running our country. We are all sick of the lies and corruption that goes on by the power hungry people in office. OUr leaders have abandoned their countries and their constituents in favor of "THE NEW WORLD ORDER."

 
dangreen3 Author Profile Page :
 

Came to conclusion early on, this climate debate has turned into just plain hype. I do not know anyone who is not in favor of a better enviroment. As a commoner, I would use the example of the introduction of a b,in placed at your curb, seperating articles that could be re cycled from garbage waste. A very big success, most citizens follow all the rules. The science supporting global warming, seems filled with qualified minds. Their data we have been told, is beyound dispute, fair enough. When the ice in the artic melts faster than norma,l something is causing that. God or man.Now to reality. North America, save our neighbor to the south is wealthy, contains the worlds only super power, and the US has a neighbor to the north with hundreds of years of oil and other resources. We are a carbon consuming society creating this wealth. If processing and burning fossil fuels is bad, then we have to first figure out how to reduce use, without shutting down our economy. The approach to force this with hype may work, or may simply transfer our wealth to those who pay lip service to it. As in China, Russia, and India. They have billions to feed, that comes first with these countries. If they don't feed their masses they will have civil in rest. In conclusion the hype needs to be shut down. Possibly Nasa should be directed to manage the process, some US agency of responsibility, not Congress, not the White house. There is not enough trust with either. Any interevention by the UN would be ruinious. Bankers, the central bankers etc, have all their roots in GDP, inflation, and greed, so they cannot help.

 
phazra Author Profile Page :
 

Preserving the global environment would never be successful,unless the infrastructure of both developing and under-developed countries are considered well.Just by imposing an index of carbon cutting on those countries,could never fullfil the desired target.In this context,developed countries should extend their hands to support and mitigate the incapabilities of the aforesaid countries all.Otherwise the movement of global environment presevation,could no longer be successful.

 
dmlpearl Author Profile Page :
 

APROGRESSIVEINDEPENDENT wrote:

"The industrialized nations caused most of the climate change and plundered natural resources, as well as precious cultural relics from Third World nations."
_________________

People really should refrain from posting their religious beliefs, such as the ones above, in a scientific discussion.

 
churchlionjudah Author Profile Page :
 

William C. Baker of the Chesapeake Bay foundation is just another liberal who is so thrilled by his own opinion that he couldn't see his own nose in a mirror because of his swelled head! The Chesapeake Bay did not become America's Dead Sea because of Global Warming, and anyone with an IQ greater than his shoe size already knows this. The Bay was killed by all of the Yankee sewage being dumped in it from the North -but don't tell Baker: he thinks that God is going to stand by and allow man to pollute the Earth out of existance. No doubt Baker is a close friend of Al Gore: perhaps they invented the Internet together. Baker also likely has pictures of polar bears all over his office with their names neatly lettered on each photo. Global Warming is the biggest lie and scam ever perptrated on the world's people, and people like Baker are the ones who expect to make billions off of those stupid enough to believe their fairy tale!!

 
Indowong Author Profile Page :
 

Why don't the 'believers' call the conference for what it is; and that is, The Copenhagen Global Warming Conference, because, while the believers may not understand, climate always changes. The 'believers' claim global warming is caused by excessive levels of atmospheric CO2, but cannot point to independent scientific evidence. They claim that there is a scientific consensus, but cannot show one. The believers claim that temperatures are increasing at an alarming rate, but cannot show that either. They can't explain why we are experiencing a cooling trend. They can't explain why hurricanes have not become more frequent. They cannot explain why the Antarctic is expanding, and the Arctic gaining ice. They can't explain why temperatures have only risen about .5C over the past 150 years beginning with the end of the Little Ice Age. They cannot explain why temperatures were higher during the Medivial Warm Period 1000 years ago. Most believers think the temperature records started at 1850 when the thermometer was invented and completely ignore proxy temperature data. But the facts speak for themselves. Global warming scaremongering is now confined to those that are riding the mystical bandwagon that insists on perpetuating the myth of CO2 as the villain responsible for the small temperature increases (.5C) in the past 150 years; a level well within the range of natural variability.The fallacy of the catastrophic global warming movement is set to join all those other stories of Armageddon. As is shown in a number of recent independent surveys, people are quickly waking up to the scare mongering tactics of the 'believers' and are now taking a hard look at what the skeptics have been saying all along. Natural climatic variability is rapidly increasing in acceptance as the primary reason for climate changes. Copenhagen will be the last international meeting on global warming. We are now into the 10th year of a steady decline in global temperatures. Once all the hype dies down, starting next week, the real judges will pass their sentences on all those politicians who sign up for any agreement which undermines the world's economy based on the CO2 myth. The IPCC will be the first organisation to go, this will include a change of government in the UK and Australia. More will follow until we return to sanity.

 
Aprogressiveindependent Author Profile Page :
 

Cap and trade is a cop-out policy. Governments in developed nations should pass stringent laws to limit emissions. This should include dramatic increases in fuel efficiency for vehicles and banning or heavily taxing SUV's that waste gas. Property taxes should be based partly upon the size of people's homes, those with large homes should pay more, as all other things equal, they usually leave more of a carbon imprint in greater energy use.

The industrialized nations caused most of the climate change and plundered natural resources, as well as precious cultural relics from Third World nations. Therefore the European nations, the United States and Japan have a moral obligation to do the most to limit climate change. They should pay much of the cost of developing nations in acquiring necessary equipment and facilities to control their emissions.

 
magnifco1000 Author Profile Page :
 

Demographics are the problem when it comes to dealing with global warming. As developing countries modernize, hundreds of millions of hungry consumers will be emerging in China and India alone within the next decade. It will be politically and socially impossible for their governments to prevent a relentless demand for consumer goods. PC's, TV's, cars and superhighways, all will be demanded. As for America, we already have pollution controls that the underdeveloped world does not have and further reductions will be enormously expensive. Further reductions will also be trivial compared to the tremendous increases that will be emerging in the East from developing countries like China. As for China "promising" to control greenhouse gasses, it's just like they promised "free trade" was going to allow US products to flood Chinese markets (like Chinese products have flooded American markets). It will and has never happened. China will never be able to achieve significant reductions in greenhouse emissions because her leaders will not risk massive social unrest and an unravelling of the power of the Communist Party. That's already been proven. So where are we? Set to impose draconian emission cuts that will only hurt American industry and result in even more tens of thousands of our jobs shipped overseas. And for what?

 
Thinker Author Profile Page :
 


Just four words for all their desks:

It's the Planet stupid !

 
dmlpearl Author Profile Page :
 

LABMAN57 wrote:

"There is an overwhelming amount of empirical and observational data that support the contention that nitrogen and carbon-based gas emissions related to fossil fuel consumption have had a significant deleterious effect on the planet's climate patterns over the past century."
_____________

Well, thank the Lord it is now only overwhelming evidence of some sort. You had us worried for a moment there.

Let's see, some fraction of CO2, which itself is less than 5% (if we don't count water vapor, if we do then it's >0.3%) of all the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, is manmade. This unknown fraction is , we are told, enough cause for worry that we have to essentially undo the Industrial Revolution. Not to worry, though, because a Green Revolution will soon allow us to live in peaceful balance with nature, so long as most of us give up travel farther than 40 miles from home, barbeques, and lawnmowers.

Good plan.

 
charko825 Author Profile Page :
 


Anyone who believes in Anthropogenic Global Warming is a moron...

 
bflat879 Author Profile Page :
 

I know it's possible no one is taking the climategate e-mails seriously, but they should be talking about the ramifications. When you understand that most of the "science" has been based on 3 data sets, which are, for the most part, based on one data set, you begin to understand the importance of the e-mails.

Does anyone, at the Post, believe the Russians, Chinese, or Indians are going to be willing to spend billions to clean up their emissions, based on the science as it stands now?

I'm sure there are many 3rd world countries wanting the science to stay the way it was so they can reap billions from Western nations and spend it on some new digs and new cars, but that's been set aside, temporarily.

If the Democrats pass Cap and Tax, with the science in limbo as it is now, they will lose all credibility next year, when the real scientists have a chance to digest all the data that's been released, and do the necessary computations to figure out where we really stand. If the science works out the way the skeptics believe it will, the Democrats would really look foolish if they pass cap and tax. If the science works out the way the skeptics believe, and the EPA decides to regulate CO2 anyway, they'll look foolish also. Chances are, their efforts will be recognized for exactly what they are, money grabs, and the Democrats won't win an election for years to come.

That's what I believe!!!!!

 
labman57 Author Profile Page :
 

The climate change deniers' argument can be summarized as follows: "Sh*t happens, only it's not really happening".

The industries that are financing the "global warming denial campaign" share the same unethical "profit at all costs" philosophy that has dominated the decision-making process of the tobacco industry as it repeatedly denied any health-related consequences of using their products.

While it is troubling that some climatologists appear to have at least discussed filtering data to improve the strength of their theories about global climate change -- an act that is a clear violation of scientific ethics -- this does not in and of itself provide evidence that man-induced climate change is a fallacy.

There is an overwhelming amount of empirical and observational data that support the contention that nitrogen and carbon-based gas emissions related to fossil fuel consumption have had a significant deleterious effect on the planet's climate patterns over the past century.

Economic impact cannot be the sole factor in every regulatory policy of the U.S. government. Those that do not learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them. We can no longer afford to be so short-sighted when the long-term consequences of our inaction are so great.

 
dmlpearl Author Profile Page :
 

William C. Baker wrote: "Why do you want to fight against clean air, clean water, and national energy independence?"
_____________

Well, Billy, it could be that many of us don't doubt climate change, but do doubt the secondary and tertiary conclusions being foisted on us. Such as, How much of the warming is anthropogenic? How much harm will be caused? Is ruining our economy worth it? Will it help in any case? You know, stuff that grownups sometimes think about.

You people blew it when you started saying it was all "decided science."

 
wbaker1 Author Profile Page :
 

There is just one question I have for all global climate change sceptics: Why do you want to fight against clean air, clean water, and national energy independence?
The proposed solutions to address climate change make sense for reasons of environmental health,economic health,human health, national security, and more. Unless this question can be answered honestly, we are left to conclude that those who proactively debunk climate change have only a narrow economic self interest in maintaining the heavily tax payer subsidized status quo. - William C. Baker, President, Chesapeake Bay Foundation

 
wbaker1 Author Profile Page :
 

There is just one question I have for all global climate change sceptics: Why do you want to fight against clean air, clean water, and national energy independence?
The proposed solutions to address climate change make sense for reasons of environmental health,economic health,human health, national security, and more. Unless this question can be answered honestly, we are left to conclude that those who proactively debunk climate change have only a narrow economic self interest in maintaining the heavily tax payer subsidized status quo. - William C. Baker, President, Chesapeake Bay Foundation

 
wbaker1 Author Profile Page :
 

There is just one question I have for all global climate change sceptics: Why do you want to fight against clean air, clean water, and national energy independence?
The proposed solutions to address climate change make sense for reasons of environmental health,economic health,human health, national security, and more. Unless this question can be answered honestly, we are left to conclude that those who proactively debunk climate change have only a narrow economic self interest in maintaining the heavily tax payer subsidized status quo. - William C. Baker, President, Chesapeake Bay Foundation

 
wbaker1 Author Profile Page :
 

There is just one question I have for all global climate change sceptics: Why do you want to fight against clean air, clean water, and national energy independence?
The proposed solutions to address climate change make sense for reasons of environmental health,economic health,human health, national security, and more. Unless this question can be answered honestly, we are left to conclude that those who proactively debunk climate change have only a narrow economic self interest in maintaining the heavily tax payer subsidized status quo. - William C. Baker, President, Chesapeake Bay Foundation

 
demcapu Author Profile Page :
 

In 1982 I wrote a paper stating the real impact of increased CO2 on humanity would come from destruction of foodchain by record breaking drought and deluge. The mechanism is simple based on CO2 soaking into or soaking up water which causes dislocation of traditional precipitation patterns. This has come to past, worsening each year with longer droughts and recordbreaking downpours. Another indicator is larger and larger weather systems that last longer because of increased CO2, e.g., monster continental system in first of December 2009.

In March 2006, I realized Mother Nature had become its own self-sustaining source of CO2 because warming higher altitudes and lattitudes. Never in the history of this planet has CO2, temp and, most importantly, biomass been so out of whack. In March 2006, I realized we had past the tipping point, that is, if we all died the planet would continue on an accelerating global dying course.

In March 2006, I concluded food riots by 2010. I was wrong--the riots started last year in 2008 with 30% of countries having food riots. I concluded a collapse a la Somali of all functions in local, state and national governments by 2012/13. Because of collapse of foodchain and government, 90% of humanity will be dead by 2015. All life will be dead by 2030. The earth will be like Venus--hot, caustic and windy which will scour away any trace that we were ever here by 2050.

I live my life like a person with a terminal disease. Concern about health care death panels is a joke because we have sinned against Mother Nature who has put all of us on death row.

Years ago I changed my lifestyle because I saw the future. I did not have kids because I did not want the pain of watching them suffer and die. With the collapse of the foodchain, an age-old meaning during hard times will return for the expression babyback ribs as canibalism becomes de jour.

For me, repeated dissemination of material to edu, gov and media brought no response. Now, it is too late. I get to watch a horror film in a theatre from which there is not exit.

 
 
 
Contact Us
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company