We are saved ! It's all going to be OK !

[toppstuff]

Great news everyone. The beige middle managers of government were too rubbish to close the deal.

I bet the corridors of Copenhagen resembled scenes from the "Thick of It" and "The Office combined", full of desperate ego's, poor skills and befuddled incompetence.

In the meantime, the world is going to be just fine.


It is still, predominantly, blue and the land is still predominantly green. Ask any passing alien.

It still looks pretty good. We have much to do to keep it that way, but if we are vigilant and focus on conservation, recycling and general respect for our planet we have a good chance of making it for a few more millenia yet.

Oh, and the global sea ice is not melting. The Scientists say so:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/glo...

So let's try and stop terrifying an entire young generation into fearing a problem that does not exist. Lets get our children enthusiastic about what practical things they can do to help the world. Banging on about climate change is NOT one of those helpful things.

Copenhagen failed. The idiots in charge had a big , grand plan but ultimately they did not have enough fools signed up and their negotiation skills, honed to perfection in middle management non-jobs in the public sector or as professional politicians before becoming MP's, were just not good enough.

Today is a happy day. I'm going to trudge through the snow with a smile in my heart to the pub and find a Guardian reader to gloat over.

[NismoGT]

So? How many flights were undertaken , how many cars were used to bring the delegates to CopenFAILen?

And an outcome of nothing. Today is indeed a good day!

[robinhood21]

I rev my motor in salute of this most excellent news.

[supertouring]

I think we should all drive an extra 5 miles this week to celebrate.

[B Oeuf]

Don't celebrate too soon, our leader is the most obssessed and the most driven of all of them in a bid to make his mark on history. He has proven that he couldn't do it by simply running the country so he's going to do it by making the most massive gesture of futility in history......at our expense. We will be taxed to the hilt in order to donate our hard earned, at his bequest, to African Dictators. He wants to outBono Bono.
The damage will be far, far greater than anything MMGW could have done and CMD will be handed the election on a silver salver, but don't believe, for one minute he will be our salvation, Dave is an Ecowarrior par excellence and will happily contuinue to rake it in. The UK will be fked

Edited by B Oeuf on Saturday 19th December 10:38

[Mclovin]

i dont know i'm listening to climate scientist ken on lbc and hes saying if we dont act now by the turn of the century its going to be so hot all our poor animals are going to die....as well the illegal taxi cab bloke seems to be getting in there with some points....how long can we ignore these astute representives of our society...

Edited by Mclovin on Saturday 19th December 10:54

[turbobloke]

McFnut still wants to pledge half a £trillion he hasn't got on blatant international grandstanding over something he won't be around to have to try and achieve i.e. the impossible. These numbers and targets are fantasy but potentially very expensive and devastating fantasy if any fool ever tried to do it.

Obviously CMD would know better..................................................................................................

[Jasandjules]

What? No deal? So we're all going to die? Time to start rioting and looting. Mr Brown said he had only 21 days to save the earth, and he's failed. It's every man for himself now.................

[Mclovin]

those trillions are going to help green people live a life they've been accustomed to though, if we dont act now they could starve....

[turbobloke]

Mclovin said:

those trillions are going to help green people live a life they've been accustomed to though, if we dont act now they could starve....

Waste of money - look at this one, they have no pockets to keep money in and would probably have trouble opening a bank account.

[DocJock]

toppstuff said:

Great news everyone. The beige middle managers of government were too rubbish to close the deal.

I bet the corridors of Copenhagen resembled scenes from the "Thick of It" and "The Office combined", full of desperate ego's, poor skills and befuddled incompetence.

In the meantime, the world is going to be just fine.


It is still, predominantly, blue and the land is still predominantly green. Ask any passing alien.

It still looks pretty good. We have much to do to keep it that way, but if we are vigilant and focus on conservation, recycling and general respect for our planet we have a good chance of making it for a few more millenia yet.

Oh, and the global sea ice is not melting. The Scientists say so:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/glo...

So let's try and stop terrifying an entire young generation into fearing a problem that does not exist. Lets get our children enthusiastic about what practical things they can do to help the world. Banging on about climate change is NOT one of those helpful things.

Copenhagen failed. The idiots in charge had a big , grand plan but ultimately they did not have enough fools signed up and their negotiation skills, honed to perfection in middle management non-jobs in the public sector or as professional politicians before becoming MP's, were just not good enough.

Today is a happy day. I'm going to trudge through the snow with a smile in my heart to the pub and find a Guardian reader to gloat over.

Well, I would hope that most people would know that I'm as much a sceptic about AGW as anyone, but that graphic shows a definite downward trend from '94 onwardson both traces does it not?

[nelly1]

turbobloke said:

Mclovin said:

those trillions are going to help green people live a life they've been accustomed to though, if we dont act now they could starve....

Waste of money - look at this one, they have no pockets to keep money in and would probably have trouble opening a bank account.

This one already has an account though...

[Balmoral Green]

DocJock said:

Well, I would hope that most people would know that I'm as much a sceptic about AGW as anyone, but that graphic shows a definite downward trend from '94 onwards on both traces does it not?

I was just thinking the same thing actually.

[nonegreen]

Balmoral Green said:

DocJock said:

Well, I would hope that most people would know that I'm as much a sceptic about AGW as anyone, but that graphic shows a definite downward trend from '94 onwards on both traces does it not?

I was just thinking the same thing actually.

Yeah 1979 to 2010 is a significant timescale for planet earth. So beware the coming of the great white handkerchief. Anyway never mind Allah is going to piss in the sands of time and all will be well.

[Getragdogleg]

nonegreen said:

Balmoral Green said:

DocJock said:

Well, I would hope that most people would know that I'm as much a sceptic about AGW as anyone, but that graphic shows a definite downward trend from '94 onwards on both traces does it not?

I was just thinking the same thing actually.

Yeah 1979 to 2010 is a significant timescale for planet earth. So beware the coming of the great white handkerchief. Anyway never mind Allah is going to piss in the sands of time and all will be well.

I would like to see a graphic that actually encompassed a much larger time scale. the 30 years picture there is not even a nano-second in world time scale terms.

I bet the graph would look VERY different if a longer scale were visible.

[DieselGriff]

Getragdogleg said:

I would like to see a graphic that actually encompassed a much larger time scale. the 30 years picture there is not even a nano-second in world time scale terms.

I bet the graph would look VERY different if a longer scale were visible.

Here's an article you may find interesting then.

edited to fix quoting.

Edited by DieselGriff on Saturday 19th December 13:34

[Getragdogleg]

DieselGriff said:

Getragdogleg said:

I would like to see a graphic that actually encompassed a much larger time scale. the 30 years picture there is not even a nano-second in world time scale terms.

I bet the graph would look VERY different if a longer scale were visible.

Here's an article you may find interesting then.

edited to fix quoting.

Edited by DieselGriff on Saturday 19th December 13:34

Thanks, not sure how i missed that on WUWT, i follw him on Twitter and think the site is excellent.

I am firmly in the Climate realist camp (my own term) I believe we are polluting but not changing the climate. Do something about all the bloody bags and st floating in the Pacific, do something about rivers getting chemicals poured into them, do something about radioactive waste seeping out of powerstations but dont tax me for a change that is not happening.

[turbobloke]

Getragdogleg said:

DieselGriff said:

Getragdogleg said:

I would like to see a graphic that actually encompassed a much larger time scale. the 30 years picture there is not even a nano-second in world time scale terms.

I bet the graph would look VERY different if a longer scale were visible.

Here's an article you may find interesting then.

edited to fix quoting.

Edited by DieselGriff on Saturday 19th December 13:34

Thanks, not sure how i missed that on WUWT, i follw him on Twitter and think the site is excellent.

I am firmly in the Climate realist camp (my own term) I believe we are polluting but not changing the climate. Do something about all the bloody bags and st floating in the Pacific...

Agree 100% about keeping clean our waterways and seas and oceans and countryside and so on. I agree plastic bags should not be discarded - but they are and they make a mess. The wider plastic bag apoplexy however is another of those whoops things.

Just like the IPCC boy scouts 'misread' 2350 in a previous report and mistook it (of course, a mistake, absolutely!) for 2035 in their rubbish about Himalayan glaciers, the story from back in 2008 about how the plastic bag mistake was spotted describes an equally silly mistake - - but nothing has happened even though the mistake is now visible for all to see!

And here we are today with all sorts of policy inflation and taxes and restrictions about a useful piece of equipment rather than addressing the selfish and thoughtless people who abuse it. The same old lazy, sloppy thinking in politicians and officialdom generally that gets similar things equally wrong.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/...

Series of blunders turned the Plastic Bag into Global Villain

Scientists and environmentalists have attacked a global campaign to ban plastic bags which they say is based on flawed science and exaggerated claims.

The widely stated accusation that the bags kill 100,000 animals and a million seabirds every year are false, experts have told The Times. They pose only a minimal threat to most marine species, including seals, whales, dolphins and seabirds.

Gordon Brown announced last month that he would force supermarkets to charge for the bags, saying that they were “one of the most visible symbols of environmental waste”. Retailers and some pressure groups, including the Campaign to Protect Rural England, threw their support behind him.

But scientists, politicians and marine experts attacked the Government for joining a “bandwagon” based on poor science.

Lord Taverne, the chairman of Sense about Science, said: “The Government is irresponsible to jump on a bandwagon that has no base in scientific evidence. This is one of many examples where you get bad science leading to bad decisions which are counter-productive. Attacking plastic bags makes people feel good but it doesn’t achieve anything.”

Campaigners say that plastic bags pollute coastlines and waterways, killing or injuring birds and livestock on land and, in the oceans, destroying vast numbers of seabirds, seals, turtles and whales. However, The Times has established that there is no scientific evidence to show that the bags pose any direct threat to marine mammals.

They “don’t figure” in the majority of cases where animals die from marine debris, said David Laist, the author of a seminal 1997 study on the subject. Most deaths were caused when creatures became caught up in waste produce. “Plastic bags don’t figure in entanglement,” he said. “The main culprits are fishing gear, ropes, lines and strapping bands. Most mammals are too big to get caught up in a plastic bag.”

He added: “The impact of bags on whales, dolphins, porpoises and seals ranges from nil for most species to very minor for perhaps a few species.For birds, plastic bags are not a problem either.”

The central claim of campaigners is that the bags kill more than 100,000 marine mammals and one million seabirds every year. However, this figure is based on a misinterpretation of a 1987 Canadian study in Newfoundland, which found that, between 1981 and 1984, more than 100,000 marine mammals, including birds, were killed by discarded nets. The Canadian study did not mention plastic bags.


Where have we heard all that before..

Politicians "joining a bandwagon based on poor science"

"Attacking X makes people feel good but achieves nothing"

"based on a misinterpretation of (an earlier) study"

[Balmoral Green]

But plastic bags do cause lethal levels of C02.

[B Oeuf]

You might be right TB but plastic bags really are horrible things and if you visit a country with a less vigilant waste collection infrastructure you'll see just how bad they are



trouble is, anything we implement will have cock all effect on these countries.....unless we make em biodegradable