Global warming: relax, nothing is going to happen

Global warming: relax, nothing is going to happen

Summary: That is, nothing is going to happen at the United Nations when world political leaders meet on climate change. Whether you see global warming as man-made, part of a natural cycle or junk "science," there is little danger that anything will be done on an international scale.


That is, nothing is going to happen at the United Nations when world political leaders meet on climate change. Whether you see global warming as man-made, part of a natural cycle or junk "science," there is little danger that anything will be done on an international scale.

China has its plan. Obama will say something. The European Union will push for stricter emission controls. Everybody who can make the case will beg for money to help their nation cope. Through it all, it's not clear that even if some political miracle produced a widely accepted global agreement that human activity could reverse what is happening on earth right now. We have no record of concerted human activity working on any other major problem beyond control of some infectious diseases. This is far more complex.

Meanwhile you polar bears, Inuit, Tongans and Bengladeshi, you're on your own. Hotter oceans be damned, it's full speed into the future.

Why so little movement on climate? One European official sees near gridlock in the talks. And then there's Afghanistan, the Middle East, genocide in Africa, bankers' bonuses. Much to do, so little time to pay attention. Whatever comes out of the U.N. meeting tomorrow will be given verbal support at the G20 meeting later this week in Pittsburgh. Relax, nothing will be done there either. No treaty signed. No numbers set in carbon.

A Chinese news service says clearly the problem is all about the money: who's got it, who gets it, who pays for what. And we all know there's no spare change in the bottom of the drawer these days. Relax, nothing will happen now.

Topics: EU, China

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • A bad time for believers

    The end of the world is nigh, yet no one is listening.

    Others are not surprised. We see the event like all the others: a massive
    carbon generator from pigs that are looking for ever more swill in their

    Grandiose speeches will be made by figures reading teleprompters and
    plans concocted to retard development by increasing the tax burden on
    the few of us left generating any wealth.

    Welcome to the new post-science world order.
    Richard Flude
    • Chicken Little has ....

      ... nothing on you! nothing to be done but put on your "end of the World Placard" and cruise the streets.
      • Miss understanding

        I don't believe global warming is a threat. End of the world comment was
        missing it's sarcasm tag. Incomplete science paraded by greedy
        cheerleaders. But it is the new world order.
        Richard Flude
  • RE: Global warming: relax, nothing is going to happen

    ...When a leading proponent for one point of view
    suddenly starts batting for the other side, it's
    usually newsworthy.

    So why was a speech last week by Prof. Mojib Latif
    of Germany's Leibniz Institute not given more

    Latif is one of the leading climate modellers in the
    world. He is the recipient of several international
    climate-study prizes and a lead author for the
    United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
    Change (IPCC). He has contributed significantly to
    the IPCC's last two five-year reports that have
    stated unequivocally that man-made greenhouse
    emissions are causing the planet to warm

    Yet last week in Geneva, at the UN's World Climate
    Conference--an annual gathering of the so-called
    "scientific consensus" on man-made climate
    change --Latif conceded the Earth has not warmed
    for nearly a decade and that we are likely entering
    "one or even two decades during which
    temperatures cool."The global warming theory has
    been based all along on the idea that the Atlantic
    and Pacific Oceans would absorb much of the
    greenhouse warming caused by a rise in man-
    made carbon dioxide, then they would let off that
    heat and warm the atmosphere and the land.

    But as Latif pointed out, the Atlantic, and
    particularly the North Atlantic, has been cooling
    instead. And it looks set to continue a cooling
    phase for 10 to 20 more years.

    "How much?" he wondered before the assembled
    delegates. "The jury is still out."
    How have Latif and other global warming scientists
    reconciled their previous belief in global warming
    with the inconvenient truth staring them in the
    face? Many claim that global warming will resume
    after this global cooling phase:

    Latif says he expects warming to resume in 2020
    or 2030.

    In the past year, two other groups of scientists--
    one in Germany, the second in the United States--
    have come to the same conclusion: Warming is on
    hold, likely because of a cooling of the Earth's
    upper oceans, but it will resume.

    But how is that knowable? How can Latif and the
    others state with certainty that after this long and
    unforeseen cooling, dangerous man-made heating
    will resume? They failed to observe the current
    cooling for years after it had begun, how then can
    their predictions for the resumption of dangerous
    warming be trusted?
    • Insignificant

      The Arctic Ocean has thinner and less ice cover every year. They thought that this year would be a record breaker - but it was "only" 5th or 6th. Small fluctuations in temperature should not be taken as an overall trend.

      The ocean IS the most tricky part of climate modeling. It's hard to understand all of the processes at work in the ocean. Maybe it's getting cooler because there are less living creatures swimming around to warm it up . . .
      Roger Ramjet
      • Maybe the failure ....

        ... of the "WiMAX steamroller" is to blame for the current cooling trend! Why is the same length of time relevant to prove Global Warming but irrelevant when disproving it?
    • Latif on global cooling

      I just blogged this:

      --Harry Fuller
  • Coward Fuller. Never debating in the blog with posters.

    You should have started with this one:

    But of course you won't because you're wrong and don't have the guts to admit that what you're preaching is your own religion Fuller. You're scared to discuss. You deserve little respect that way man.

    Get a real job.
    • Why do you keep subjecting yourself...

      ... to opinions you find abhorrent? And why do you care
      if others read these opinions? And, do you think name
      calling and insults are going to make people change their
      minds, and believe that you have a more logical and
      reasoned argument?
      • That's 3 questions.

        1. I enjoy it.
        2. That's your assumption.
        3. No.

        There you have it. I assume you belong to the camp that wants to kill people in order to 'fight global warming'?

        Thanks for responding by the way.
  • Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

    Human fossil fuel usage and population growth are triggering earth's next E.L.E.

    What will be left after it's all over in a ~100,000 years is the question. The nastiest one so far, the P.T.E., left fungi as earth's dominant life form.

    Only through sustained, concerted effort can humanity avoid this fate.

    Unfortunately, too many humans are willing to embrace the forth coming rapture. My question to them, what makes you think you will be welcome in heaven after you've destroyed/killed nearly every other life form on the planet??
  • What happens if the temperature doesn't change in 25 years?

    So since nothing is being done to reduce the GROWTH of
    annual carbon output much less reduce it period, then we
    are in a lot of trouble within 25 years if the man-made
    global warming believers/alarmists are right. So now I
    have some questions.

    * What happens 25 years from now if the climate is more or
    less the same?
    * What happens if the polar ice caps haven't melted?
    * What happens when the seas haven't risen and my house is
    still dry even though I'm already below sea level?
    * What happens if annual hurricanes stay statistically the
    same with minor and routine decadal fluctuations?

    Will you Harry Fuller, and everyone else that's bashed the
    doubters as "deniers" and flat earth idiots apologize?
    Would you apologize for wasting billions of dollars?
    Would you apologize for forcing families to waste
    thousands of dollars each year on your policies? Or would
    you simply stay silent or would you say that it's early to
    tell and that more money is needed and more punitive
    policies are needed?

    I tend to think that it would be the latter since the
    alarmists have already hedged their bets by stopping the
    use of the term "global warming" with "climate change".
    So if the temperature goes up or down, you'd always be
    right. I mean the same people were talking about a new
    ice age 25 years ago right? That hasn't stopped them from
    reversing course.
    • what happens if ???

      The premise that nothing done and ...

      "* What happens 25 years from now if the climate is more or less the same?"

      Humanity will still be faced with the problem of dimishing Energy Return On Energy Invested for all fossil fuels. Ergo, humanity will still need to switch to renewables, sooner or later.

      Rewrite all physics and chemistry books, (unlikely, since nearly everything else in our modern society is also based them).

      It's getting much warmer these days, a trend which will only increase. First thing one will notice is an increase in nighttime temps. At my location, night time low temps are running 8 degrees above historic norms.
    • Well said!(nt)

    • What happens if it does?

      What happens if it doesn't is we have managed to move from burning fossil fuels into renewable energy sources. The air we breath is cleaner. We don't have to worry about the next war in the middle east driving up petroleum costs. We don't have to worry about being held hostage by OPEC, an organization who has never and will never care if they are causing our country hardship. Our children will live in a better world than the one we live in today. Now, back at you...

      * What happens 25 years from now if the climate is even worse than predicted?

      * What happens when the seas have risen and your house is under water?

      * What happens if annual hurricanes more closely resemble the great red spot of Jupiter than todays hurricanes?

      * What happens if the price of oil goes up to $300+/barrel and wreaks devastation on our economy?

      Weighing the costs of being right versus being wrong on both sides, I know which side I'd rather be if being wrong is the outcome. It isn't on the side of OPEC.
      • Realistic cost evaluations need to be done

        You have of course put your finger on the scale by trying to imagine beyond the worst case scenarios as the cost of inactivity.

        The thing that has a lot of people concerned about the whole "Climate Change" movement is the fact that not only has the definition changed (from "Global Warming") but the goal doesn't really seem to be energy independence. Instead we've got things in the US like a Cap and Trade bill that would cost the average household $1,700+ annually for no real benefit.

        Renewable sources like Wind and Solar are not base-line power sources. They cannot be relied upon to provide a steady known amount of power into the grid. Meanwhile, clean sources like nuclear are being pushed off the table.

        The last UN Climate Change Conference saw a large number of airplanes flying to Bali to decry the waste of modern economies. Do you see anything wrong with that picture?
        Robert Crocker
        • Tit for tat...

          People who claim that moving to alternative sources of energy will somehow ruin our economy and bankrupt the nation likewise are looking at beyond worst case scenarios and completely ignoring any positive results. We can certainly agree that nuclear energy has gotten pushed aside all too often because of problems that occurred using facilities built in the 1950s and 1960s. It gets old hearing strawman arguments from both sides of this issue, but I always go back to looking at the worst case scnenario of being wrong on both sides of an argument that can be effectively argued from both sides. In the case of pushing alternative energy sources over the continuation of burning of fossil fuels, there is only one side of that argument which has a major negative impact if it's wrong. That side isn't the one trying to move away from non renewable sources of energy.
          • Taxing industry and consumers to make ....

            ... alternative energies viable inthe "free" market will make jobs more scarce. That is a negative impact even if the worse case scenario doesn't occur. You seem to have a distorted view that only encompasses one side of the arguement.
    • Totally agree with you.

      George, what a good analysis. I totally agree.

      Recent history has shown that doomsday 'believahs' (and Fuller is one) NEVER are man enough to admit their mistakes.

      Maybe we should set up a website and capture screenshots of his blogs there.

      Environmental activists don't bother with facts. They're already believing that people should be killed 'on order to save the planet':
      • Loonie view

        The cnsnews link is about contraceptives, not killing people.