ie8 fix

Pre-Copenhagen climate talks end in Barcelona

By | November 6, 2009, 2:12pm PST

Summary: Copehagen is in one month. Talks in Barcelona produce verbal emissions.

The talking is done. But not much else was done. “Stalemate” says an Indian pub. “Rich-poor stalemate” says a Britich paper.

On a pact to end deforestation in developing nations: “toothless” says Reuters.

And a pro-action Prime Minister in Australia vented his frustration on global warming inaction. He directly attacked global warming deniers as protectors of vested interests.

“They are a minority. They are powerful. And invariably they are driven by vested interests. Powerful enough to so far block domestic legislation in Australia, powerful enough to so far slow down the passage of legislation through the Congress of the United States. And ultimately, by limiting the ambition of national climate change commitments, they are powerful enough to threaten a deal on global climate change both in Copenhagen and beyond.”

Those are the words of Aussie PM, Kevin Rudd. Now who could he have been talking about?

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

Topics

Disclosure

Harry Fuller

http://blogs.zdnet.com/green/?page_id=2

Biography

Harry Fuller

Harry Fuller is a media veteran, having spent decades in TV news in the San Francisco Bay Area. As GeneralManager of KPIX-TV (CBS) he founded one of the nation's first TV station websites in early 1995. He was News Direcor at TechTV when it was founded in 1998. In 2001 he moved to London to become Executive Producer for CNBC Europe. Four years later he returned to San Francisco as Executive Editor for CNET's news.com.

50
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

Selective - I select NAS, you select Monckton video
Reality-based Updated - 9th Nov 2009
Selective indeed - I select National Academy of Sciences, NASA, NOAA, British Met Office, MIT, etc.
You select a Monckton video.

While you hang around the keyboard waiting for messages to contradict, the world is warming, not cooling.

Evidence is wasted on you.
0 Votes
+ -
Who could he be talking about?
joeschmo1of3 6th Nov 2009
How about the 57% of people in America who don't buy carbon emissions causing global warming?

Looks like the other "vested interests" needs to step up their re-education regime, er, I mean, need to do more "raising awareness."
0 Votes
+ -
Ahum
CounterEthicsCommissioner-23034636492738337469105860790963 6th Nov 2009
Carbon emissions causing global warming? Already debunked. A joke these days.
0 Votes
+ -
That must be the same 57%
Economister 7th Nov 2009
who thinks the earth is 6000 years old. You can always rely on Americans to be well informed on current world affairs - like Africa is a country.

Nice try
0 Votes
+ -
Not exactly.
CounterEthicsCommissioner-23034636492738337469105860790963 7th Nov 2009
There are masses of scientists that oppose the theory of man-made global warming.

At the same time, it is true that the majority of the people who know that God created the earth and that the earths is around 6,000 years old, have not lost their minds, and do not believe (a) the warming aspect, and (b) the man-made aspect. Simply shows that there is more critical thinking left in that particular demographic.

Lil problem for the tree-lickers: The early middle-ages were much, much warmer than now and showed much faster increases in temperatures. Oh - that must be because there were so many factories then. LOL!
0 Votes
+ -
I am not going to ...
Economister 7th Nov 2009
get into a silly argument with you, but I do find it rather amusing that you use the word(s) "know" and "critical thinking" in the context of faith.

Clearly, you have no idea of the difference between knowledge and critical thinking on the one hand and faith on the other. It seems to me the majority of Americans are equally confused. And therein lies a HUGE problem, but I do not expect you to understand that either.
0 Votes
+ -
Hey that's ok.
CounterEthicsCommissioner-23034636492738337469105860790963 7th Nov 2009
Simply means that you have made up your mind without investigating *any* evidence. So your religion is evolution and environmentalism.

Oops. Painful!
0 Votes
+ -
Lies told to control population
Use_More_OIL_NOW Updated - 6th Nov 2009
Oh yeah, look at Al Gore he lives in a
25,000 square foot mansion and he is going
to be a BILLIONAIRE selling carbon credits.

*** Also, they said having a baby created
pollution so NO more babies we need to
do as the GREAT leader says!

So it is 'ok' for the elite to fly around
in jets, the peasants need to do without.

I find it amazing how liberals do the things
they want the peasants to do without.

This will bring the destruction of jobs and
out-sourcing what manufacturing is left
right to China.

Plus, they need to get rid meat since
cows pass gas they are evil now to.

Thanks to the government that has now
ran the debt to $7 TRILLION and wants
to push for free healthcare to welfare
people who DO NOT even work, muchless
need it since they get FREE food
and housing and FREE hospital care.

I do not see China signing anything
and this is a LIE it has NOTHING to
do but controlling how people live,
eat and being taxes for breathing.

Good grief!
0 Votes
+ -
This post is just plain WEIRD
BonMot 7th Nov 2009
Re the Gore house -- get some facts, please. Try this: http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp

Ditto: Who said "having a baby = pollution so no more babies?" Plain nuts!

"...liberals do the things
they want the peasants to do without" -- 'Scuse me? Are there no rich conservatives just taking, had over fist, with no consideration for others at all? Think for a minute. Dick Cheney? The entire Bush clan? Ceos of insurance companies fighting like demons to keep you and me from having a chance for affordable health care? Give me a break. You are living inside a very painful iron mask and you can't see very much - obviously.

Your message is so blighted by ignorance and rage that you can't even type straight. I'm sorry for you that you're so very angry - but I think you could feel better if you stopped listening to ranting right-wing nuts (yep - your sources stick out like sore thumbs). Get away from FOX and try some REALLY fair and balanced information. Just try it. You may like it.
0 Votes
+ -
Not weird.
CounterEthicsCommissioner-23034636492738337469105860790963 7th Nov 2009
You can actually find much of the information he's talking about from credible sources - if you do some investigation yourself.

For example: tree-lickers propose to have fewer babies:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1739253,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/jan/06/climatechange.climatechangeenvironment
http://climateandcapitalism.com/?p=348

So. Stop kneejerking but have an open mind.
If we all used energy at the rate of Al we'd struggle to get it out of the
ground fast enough.

Buying "offsets" does zero to reduce one's CO2 emissions, it's a scam.
Similarly calculating one's daily energy usage ignores the massive energy
required to build these assets in the first place. I'm amazed the
"believers" can't see it.
0 Votes
+ -
And your point is what?
Economister 7th Nov 2009
"Similarly calculating one's daily energy usage ignores the massive energy required to build these assets in the first place."

Care to list some product/asset categories comparing energy to manufacture/construct versus energy consumed during their useful lives?

I know for a fact that for cars the energy required to make them is minuscule compared to the energy consumed during their useful lives.

In any event, what is your point?

So it takes energy to produce the product, which itself consumes energy during use. I think we all know that. It has been that way since the dawn of man. It takes energy to make a tool and it takes energy to use the tool. What a revelation. How is that relevant to the current debate?

0 Votes
+ -
Answer = simple (and obvious): hypocrisy
CounterEthicsCommissioner-23034636492738337469105860790963 7th Nov 2009

And that goes for the vast majority of the gaia tree lickers by the way.

You might also be included - check your conscience, check your lifestyle, check what you DO before preaching life style changes (and of course higher taxes to fund your delirious hobbies).

So come back when you're sure of being 'clean' of hypocrisy.
0 Votes
+ -
Are you Richard Flude?
Economister 7th Nov 2009
My conversation with you is pointless and over.

It is interesting to note however that you feel the need to put others down by calling them names, and still try to claim the moral high ground.

As I said, the more you post the sillier you look.
0 Votes
+ -
No I'm not Richard Flude.
CounterEthicsCommissioner-23034636492738337469105860790963 7th Nov 2009
And of course you couldn't resist replying again.

To sum it up:
- you refuse to investigate evidence that supports your *belief*;
- you refuse to investigate evidence which refutes your opinions (oops: religion);
- and get angry when confronted with the above.

LOL! Way to go! happy
0 Votes
+ -
United States Department of Energy estimates
Richard Flude Updated - 8th Nov 2009
"It takes energy to make a tool and it takes energy to use the tool.
What a revelation. How is that relevant to the current debate?"

the residential sector consumes only "about 15 percent of world
delivered energy consumption".

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/pdf/0484(2009).pdf

However all energy consumed is on behalf of individuals, supporting
our quality of life.

Energy offset and "green" sourced of an individuals residential energy
use ignores the other 85%. It's a con.

Defending AL Gore energy intensive lifestyle demonstrates the
shallowness of the whole debate. As long as their heros say the "right"
thing the glaring hypocrisy is ignored.
0 Votes
+ -
Still confused
Economister Updated - 8th Nov 2009
The link does not work so I could not look at the document. I am guessing the other 85% is industry and transportation. I doubt very much it is being ignored.

In any event, the road we are on is not sustainable, period. Through energy efficiencies you may be able to enjoy the SAME quality of life but use half as much energy - mostly from renewable sources. What is so bad about that?

The industrial and transportation sectors can also cut down energy consumption and use more energy from renewable sources while greatly reducing CO2 emissions. Again, what is so bad about that? The renewable energy sector will create a lot of employment opportunities.

Nobody is asking you to move into a cave and start riding a bicycle, but what we are currently doing CANNOT continue. Period.
0 Votes
+ -
So what did you do so far, for "the cause".
CounterEthicsCommissioner-23034636492738337469105860790963 8th Nov 2009
If you can't show anything, then you are a hypocrite.
0 Votes
+ -
Copy the full line for the link
Richard Flude Updated - 8th Nov 2009
"In any event, the road we are on is not sustainable, period."

In what way? I've heard this claim for decades and it's proven wrong
every time.

"Through energy efficiencies you may be able to enjoy the SAME
quality of life but use half as much energy - mostly from renewable
sources."

I'm all for being more energy efficient. But put a price to it
(nothings free). At some price the benefit diminishes, and money is
wasted.

Today renewable energy is not able to deliver on many of the inflated
promises made by it's supporters. It exists because of massive
subsidiaries, it's massively inefficient and has near zero replacement
value for traditional energy generation.

"The industrial and transportation sectors can also cut down energy
consumption and use more energy from renewable sources while
greatly reducing CO2 emissions. Again, what is so bad about that?"

At what price? This price must be paid by someone.

"The renewable energy sector will create a lot of employment
opportunities."

The renewable energy sector today is substantially less efficient than
other forms of energy production/distribution. Jobs created in that
sector COST a greater number of jobs in other sectors as the total
efficiency of the economy is reduced.

"Nobody is asking you to move into a cave and start riding a bicycle,
but what we are currently doing CANNOT continue."

Why can't it continue?

I use significantly more energy than most of the world's population. I
also enjoy a standard of living unimaginable to these same people.

I've travelled to many of these countries and seen their suffering. I'm
not the one denying them what I enjoy. I've witnessed the advances in
much Asia, powered by cheap energy, a decline in poverty never
before seen.

Technologies continue to develop, who knows what's around the
corner. Renewable technologies today are not able to sustain my
standard of living, nor extend it to others.

If you wish to deny to others what we enjoy come out and say it.
Don't be like Gore and mates with their "do as I say not as I do"
hypocrisy, their shifty slight of hand carbon credit con or make claims
about alternative technologies that simply aren't supported.

If you're calling for improved energy efficiencies after producing a
cost benefit analysis with full disclosure of cost, you have my support.
0 Votes
+ -
@Richard
CounterEthicsCommissioner-23034636492738337469105860790963 8th Nov 2009
Good job. Economister is by his own admission confused and he sure is. He even stopped discussing with me after some serious shameful defeats. Let's see how soon he gives up - you're giving him a fact overload.... happy
0 Votes
+ -
@Richard Flude
Economister Updated - 8th Nov 2009
You clearly do not have much of a grasp on the spectrum of issues affecting world energy pricing, supply, alternatives, balance of payments, national security, environmental effects etc. You do not seem to be able to see much past your navel.

I see no point in continuing this discussion.
0 Votes
+ -
@Economister
CounterEthicsCommissioner-23034636492738337469105860790963 8th Nov 2009
bye bye! (fact overload must be painful) happy
0 Votes
+ -
Grow up or go back to your daycare (nt)
Economister 7th Nov 2009
nt
0 Votes
+ -
Nice try
joeschmo1of3 7th Nov 2009
...not
0 Votes
+ -
Ahhh now I've got 'm all.
CounterEthicsCommissioner-23034636492738337469105860790963 8th Nov 2009
Another 'nt' from someone's who's confused.

Cheer up!
0 Votes
+ -
nt
0 Votes
+ -
Hey... you said you wouldn't reply anymore.
CounterEthicsCommissioner-23034636492738337469105860790963 8th Nov 2009
Bait! LOL! happy
0 Votes
+ -
The ignorant masses......
Economister 7th Nov 2009
do not change the facts, they just remain ignorant - and are even ignorant about their ignorance.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/10/scientific-societies-warn-senate-climate-change-is-real.ars
0 Votes
+ -
Make up your own mind..
CounterEthicsCommissioner-23034636492738337469105860790963 7th Nov 2009
instead of relying on letters.

http://mnfreemarketinstitute.org/2009/10/22/new-monckton-presentation-video-includes-slides/

Nearly all the organizations that signed the letter have vested financial interests in maintaining the global warming (oops: change) scare. That doesn't mean they're wrong. It simply means you always have to know more about the people who have an opinion or another. Just one of the simpler tests for truth.

Now, watch that video with an open mind please and let me know what you think. I'm curious to hear your opinion.
0 Votes
+ -
Letters vs videos
Economister 7th Nov 2009
Again, your logic is badly flawed to the point of being amusing. You dismiss a letter (representing 10s of thousands of scientists) and you refer me to a single video, as if a video has somehow more credibility than a letter.

You ask me to make up my own mind and to watch something with an open mind, yet it appears your life is governed by faith, which is the antithesis to open and independent mindedness.

The more you post, the sillier you look.
0 Votes
+ -
So let me get this straight
CounterEthicsCommissioner-23034636492738337469105860790963 7th Nov 2009
You refuse to watch counter-evidence, and at the same time also refuse to investigate evidence that supports your existing views?


0 Votes
+ -
Sweet!
CounterEthicsCommissioner-23034636492738337469105860790963 8th Nov 2009
Let's start with your nice NCDC chart. Notice in what year the chart starts and in what year the chart ends?

Right, now *add* to the left side of the chart the years before 1880. Same way add to the chart the years up to 2009.

Result: no hocky stick at all.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Conclusion: you're not thinking for yourself at all. You're *saying* that you do but clearly you don't.

Re-peat-after-me: F*A*I*L*!
0 Votes
+ -
Uhm. Nope.
CounterEthicsCommissioner-23034636492738337469105860790963 9th Nov 2009
That's called selective statistics. Picking data sets to suit your theory.

Fact is, last 10 years have seen global cooling. Additionally, climate has been much warmer in de medieval ages.

Hocky, hockey, to be honest I'm not sure - I don't care for it that much...
0 Votes
+ -
Selective - I select NAS, you select Monckton video
Reality-based Updated - 9th Nov 2009
Selective indeed - I select National Academy of Sciences, NASA, NOAA, British Met Office, MIT, etc.
You select a Monckton video.

While you hang around the keyboard waiting for messages to contradict, the world is warming, not cooling.

Evidence is wasted on you.
0 Votes
+ -
Government control
Use_More_OIL_NOW 8th Nov 2009
Yes, the sheep follow the almighty in
office now since he says the economy
is doing great with 500,000 jobs lost
that will NEVER return.

Now all of the tree-huggers are complaining
about plush toilet paper. Complaining
about population control, so I guess
the social elite can tell people
who can reproduce and who can eat meat.

This will change in 2010 when the
demo-crooks are voted out and the
Barry Sorento is going to be voted
out in 2012...

0 Votes
+ -
Like I said...
Economister 8th Nov 2009
grow up or go back to your daycare. If you cannot get beyond your stupid rants to a semi-coherent argument, maybe you should quit posting.
0 Votes
+ -
Weird.
CounterEthicsCommissioner-23034636492738337469105860790963 8th Nov 2009
The poster did not indicate that he lived in a daycare. So why would you suggest he go back to his daycare?

Weird.

Oh wait, you're trying to belittle him. Well well, now that's grown up!

Suggestion for your next post: Enlighten us with the measures you have taken in your life to improve the environment (oops: I mean in reality your self-inflicted conscience).

That will be fun.
0 Votes
+ -
Keep going, you have missed a few (nt)
Economister 8th Nov 2009
nt
0 Votes
+ -
Going where?
CounterEthicsCommissioner-23034636492738337469105860790963 8th Nov 2009
nt
0 Votes
+ -
Is this the same Kevin Rudd
Richard Flude Updated - 8th Nov 2009
that's been doing the media rounds desperate to divert
attention from the largest issue in Australia politics at the
moment, which he's not doing well at, illegal boat arrivals?

Is this the same Kevin Rudd who's first action as PM was to
sign Kyoto, but since accepted we'll miss it's targets (even
when negotiated by the previous government to be
significantly higher than 1990 levels)? The same Kevin
Rudd which has made any reduction of national CO2
output impossible with his proposed immigration
program?

Is this the same Kevin Rudd that reneged on its election
promise to run Parliament House and MPs' electoral offices
on clean energy? Promised to undertake energy and water
audits and hasn't? Promised to set up an ''interdepartmental
committee on government leadership in sustainability" that no one
can find despite it being scheduled to report back on June 2008?

The same Kevin Rudd that whilst preaching energy
conservation for the masses was caught out driving the
least efficient tax payer funded fleet vehicle?

I can see why the hypocrites in Copenhagen and the Al
Gores love to quote this man. He's one of them.
0 Votes
+ -
@Navel - oops: Economister I mean
CounterEthicsCommissioner-23034636492738337469105860790963 8th Nov 2009
You lost and now flee. Great!
0 Votes
+ -
Wow!
Economister 8th Nov 2009
Three more posts. Are you starting to feel desperate? Ignored and rejected? Do you have an incessant need to inject your mindless blabber repeatedly into conversations not directed to you?

You are even more pathetic than I originally thought.
0 Votes
+ -
And of course Economister couldn't resist...
CounterEthicsCommissioner-23034636492738337469105860790963 8th Nov 2009
After losing the argument twice, he now resorts to name calling.

Sweet! happy
0 Votes
+ -
Well it has been fun......
Economister 8th Nov 2009
seeing how much weird contorted logic I could get out of you. I knew you would always respond. You always HAVE to have the last word. You always HAVE to convince yourself you have won the "argument". It is fun to play with people like that. You can play them like a fiddle.

Good night.
0 Votes
+ -
Projection much?
joeschmo1of3 8th Nov 2009
Yeah, too much.
0 Votes
+ -
Did you just learn a fancy new word?
Economister 9th Nov 2009
nt
0 Votes
+ -
Nope
joeschmo1of3 9th Nov 2009
Learned that one in grade school, so I figured that should be where I keep the vocabulary level for you.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix