The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Copenhagen: the price of the atmosphere > Comments

Copenhagen: the price of the atmosphere : Comments

By Andrew Glikson, published 31/12/2009

A denial campaign waged by contrarians supported by fossil fuel interests is holding the world to ransom.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 14
  8. 15
  9. 16
  10. All
I fully share Dr Glikson's concerns. However I think that nothing meaningful coming out Copenhagen is a whole lot better than some piss-weak agreement.

The last thing that we wanted was an agreement which basically meant the continuation of business as usual with piffling and meaningless reductions in CO2 emissions.

Such a deal would have had a big placating effect. At least without any deal, the level of concern remains right up there, with the urgency even more heightened in the minds of the world's decision-makers and those that influence them.

So now the trick is to make this count for something.

What's the chance of that? Tiny, but certainly better than if Copenhagen had produced some pretend-to-be-concerned-about-climate-change deal.
Posted by Ludwig, Thursday, 31 December 2009 10:00:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Equally likely is the possibility that Andrew Glikson and his fellow conspirators are blackmailing the rest of us with their phoney global warming hypothesis.

Has not anthropogenic global warming been correctly identified as the scam of the century?
Posted by anti-green, Thursday, 31 December 2009 10:53:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OMG - we're doomed!

Another hysterical article, oh well nothing new there is there?

Another conspiracy theory, I know lots of skeptics and none of them are getting paid by big oil, so your inference is incorrect, but of course emotional that there is a conspiracy. People can be skeptical without being paid for it, normal everyday people.

Can't you understand that not everyone sees it the way you do, or is that the problem, like most eco types, you're a control freak?

For a conspiracy, try CRU, who even got to control the peer review process of climate science which is now completely in doubt in everyone's minds - except die hard believers.

Maybe we wouldn't have you all in such a tizz is some years ago we had not let "A massive denial campaign waged by a coalition of contrarians supported by 'pseudo Eco' interests is holding the world to ransom" deny us Nuclear Power .. where were you then mate?

You also have the reference to Caligula incorrect, mankind did not intentionally and knowingly set out to change the climate. (there may be contributions to climate change by man, but man does not change the climate, it changes on its own)

The more correct comparison to Caligula is the misguided and deluded ones (like you) who now want to control the climate, just tweak this gas by this much in this time and that will happen - yes, of course it will. /sarc.

What folly!

Do you have a book coming out soon?

Are you government funded, of course you are, are the grants coming due?

Government AGW research grants, quite competitive, so going to the press is one one to one up your grant money competition isn't it?

Your future is tied to alarmism isn't it, so why do we expect any different.
Posted by rpg, Thursday, 31 December 2009 11:00:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What a load of rubbish!
My emails to the oil industry for financial support don't attract a reply, much less funds.
For centuries man thought that he could control the climate and prayed to his Gods to seek success.
When openly peer reviewed science proves that CO2 is a pollutant I will start taking action to stop it.
In the meantime, remember that your father, if you knew him, was one of those who cried "The World is Doomed - The End is Nigh".
Nowadays we send them to University or Parliament. Many work for Government agencies.
I suggest, with great respect, that you resume taking your pills.
Posted by phoenix94, Thursday, 31 December 2009 11:18:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Andrew Glikson: if Copenhagen had succeeded (or its successor) in reducing emissions below the current annual incremental increase in global biotic uplifts of annual additions to atmospheric CO2, it would have produced global famine on an unimaginable scale. But then like most of your colleagues at ANU you are unaware of any aspect of photosynthesis without which we would have nothing to eat or drink except H2O.
Posted by Tom Tiddler, Thursday, 31 December 2009 11:32:21 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yet another depressing display of OLO's best and worst. Glikson has endeavored to present the key evidence related to global warming, only to be assailed by GW deniers in their typical evidence-free rantings and personal insults.

The pattern seems to be emerging: There are three main groups participating in the GW debate- in one group are about 100,000 scientists trying to exercise their craft of evidence-based logical positivism- that is, presenting observations in a way that is open to support or refutation. Another group, which includes many OLO bloggers, are essentially faith-based free-riders: they cower to authorities ranging from popes to politicians to corporate executives, using the open attitudes of scientists as a medium for exercising their prejudices. They are free-riders as they accept the fruits of science (including the capacity to blog on the Web) while denying that science is the most honest form of discourse that we have.

The third group are the cynics- including some corporate mouthpieces, some politicians and some God-mongerers who simply choose to use the deniers to do their dirty work of fighting reason. They have other agendas, but see a crisis like global warming is an opportunity too good to waste.
Posted by Jedimaster, Thursday, 31 December 2009 11:55:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 14
  8. 15
  9. 16
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy