Finally.

[pjclarke]

But Al Gore has a big house! You can't take that away from them.

[_V_]

The cynic in me says this is all about a collection of very rich, high energy using people figuring out a way to continue to make lots of money off the back of producing energy, whilst governments ramp up "green" taxes on the usage, for their own ends.

It has nothing really to do with climate or the environment, but a means to relieve ordinary people of their hard-earned, whilst labelling them as the bad guys.

[pjclarke]

too subtle!

Subtle and wrong.

The atmospheric concentration of CO2 recently reached 400 ppm or 0.04%, in any given period man made emissions of CO2, while measured in Gigatonnes per year, are about 4% of combined natural and anthropogenic CO2, hence 0.000016%.

However, prior to that 4% addition, the carbon cycle was in dynamic equilibrium, carbon flowed between the three great reservoirs of the biosphere, the oceans and the atmosphere with sinks roughly matching sources. But short-circuiting the cycle by digging up the sequestered fossil fuels, and cutting down the forests has perturbed that equilibrium. Once emitted to the atmosphere CO2 flows between the reservoirs for a long time before being re-sequestered. About 25% remains 1,000 years after emission, effectively 'forever' in policy terms. Also, without some of the additional CO2 being absorbed by the oceans, concentrations would be twice as high. Not that dissolving CO2 in the oceans is without its hazards.


Prior to industrialisation, CO2 was about 270ppm, so the cumulative effect of that 4% is that the manmade stuff is now actually about 40% of the total, pushing concentration well outside of the 'natural' range it has occupied for at least 400,000 years.

[LucidDementia]

I see it as the first move towards a global taxation; the first step towards global government all controlled by a global monetary system all controlled by the same people.

Just Cuba, Iran and North Korea to go.

But I'm a swivel-eyed lunatic so I'm sure it's really about the polar bears (cause they're more important than world hunger).

[DodgyAgent]

Paris climate change deal LIVE - final draft agreement released and would keep temperature rises 'well below' 2C - Telegraph

Forbes Welcome

[pjclarke]

Forbes Welcome

That link seems to be to the Forbes home page. Which story did you mean to link to? Was it this one?

Forbes Welcome

Meanwhile

The*Paris agreement*and the supporting decisions are a diplomatic triumph. They are an act of true global co-operation of historic significance. Yet it is crucial to distinguish between diplomacy and implementation. The diplomats have done their job: the Paris agreement points the world in the right direction with sophistication and clarity. It does not, however, ensure implementation, which remains the domain of politicians, businessmen, scientists, engineers and civil society.

Cynics will say the agreement is unenforceable. They are right. They will imply that the agreement is therefore irrelevant, or doomed to fail — but in this, they are wrong.

Jeffrey Sachs writing in the FT

*“It sometimes seems that the countries of the UN can unite on nothing, but nearly 200 countries have come together and agreed a deal. Today, the human race has joined in a common cause. The Paris agreement is only one step on a long road and there are parts of it that frustrate, that disappoint me, but it is progress. The deal alone won’t dig us out of the hole that we’re in, but it makes the sides less steep

Kumi Naidoo, quoted in the Guardian.

I cannot imagine any other topic on which all the countries n the world would agree unanimously. We've had a scientific consensus for decades, now it has brought about a political consensus.

Finally.

[original PM]

Kumi Naidoo, quoted in the Guardian.

I cannot imagine any other topic on which all the countries n the world would agree unanimously. We've had a scientific consensus for decades, now it has brought about a political consensus.

Finally.

But what have they agreed? to make sure other people have to pay more and pollute less?

Not sure about that tbh

[LucidDementia]

I cannot imagine any other topic on which all the countries n the world would agree unanimously. We've had a scientific consensus for decades, now it has brought about a political consensus.

Finally.

Your "scientific consensus" is meaningless as we have said before. Science is not about consensus and never will be no matter how many times you repeat it. Never mind the fact that the consensus you refer to and the actual claims made by your religion are not the same thing.

I'm pretty confident that the countries of the world would agree that world hunger and global poverty are far more important problems which are well within the scope of being realistically solved, but hey, no worries, you idiots now have a platform which will allow you to say either "we didn't do enough" or "look, we were right, it's working" whatever happens.

You imbeciles just gave the entire planet to the central banks.


It's interesting timing don't you think that the Paris mass shooting attacks occurred just before this event allowing new laws to be pushed through to ensure nobody could properly protest this insanity? Maybe I'm just paranoid. 2 decades of interesting "coincidences" does that to a guy.

[LucidDementia]

But what have they agreed? to make sure other people have to pay more and pollute less?

Not sure about that tbh

They've agreed not to let the temperature go up more than 2 degrees by 2100. We can do this by adjusting the CO2 output knob. It's dead simple.

[d000hg]

But what have they agreed? to make sure other people have to pay more and pollute less?

Every country has agreed to make other people pay more? That seems something of a paradox.