The Climate Connection: What's stopping us?

This is most simple.
Starting by Al Gore we saw politician screaming hysterically that the world was going to end unless we all made radical changes TODAY and our taxes went up dramatically.
It was seen as hysterical rantings and noting more than a ploy by Democrats and "one world government" types to raise taxes, further empower a tyrannical U.N. to control individual lives. This was further brought home to people when Mr. Gore stated in an interview that global warming was bigger then Islamic terrorism as a threat to America and then he went off to his mansion which burned thousands of dollars of natural gas in his gas guzzling SUV.
Later we found out that the scientific data was skewed to make a political point and the average person scoffed at this as merely a ploy to accomplish income distribution across the globe.
No average person can understand or make a human connection why using a light bulb with toxic mercury will cure the planet. Everyone knows that when these bulbs are at end of life they will end up in landfills further polluting the environment with the mercury inside.
We now see politicians, mostly from 3rd world countries, wanting the West to hobble their industrial production, decimate their economies and pay outrageous taxes thru the U.N. to 3rd world rat holes that have been perpetually rife with corruption and even after TRILLIONS in aid have not improved the lives of their people.

You can no more stop climate change than you can stop volcanoes and earthquakes. It's part of nature. When you phrase the question as in climate change is entirely created by man, when it isn't, the climate has always been and always will change, whether humans are here or not, then the you don't have to wonder why people won't agree to do something they cannot do.

Phrase the question as "what can people do to lessen the human impact on climate change" and don't state things like "stopping climate change" because you cannot stop something we have no control over.

In a different debate about the US economy, I recently made this example that works for climate change as well. Imagine you are on a cruise ship going around the world. Every port, the occupants file off, go ashore, and bring back stuff. This has gone on so long that the ship not only looks cluttered, but the weight of the “stuff” is destabilizing and sinking the ship. Everybody agrees that some of the stuff needs to go overboard. But nobody is willing to volunteer their stuff. So people argue over what stuff should go, people still keep brining stuff on at every port, and the ship keeps sinking.

The western countries are aggressively promoting and encouraging, other countries to grow. However, in odder for an economy to grow, and free enterprises democracies to “emerge” they require energy. Lots of energy in today’s global market. So out one side of our mouth modernized countries say to the emerging culture, “grow” and to evolve. But out of the other side we don’t want to allow them the energy that they need to do that. In the mean time. All of those countries that are “modernized” are on economic systems that require continuous growth. We must stay ahead of each other. Doing so requires massive amounts of energy. So, who is going to change. What large group of people are going to say, “You know what. We are going to shrink our economy, reduce our populations, and cut our luxury energy needs.” We here in the US seem to feel entitled to consume until we sink the ship.

Then you have people who no matter what evidence is presented, will refuse to accept the world is not flat. There is no changing the "Believing mind".

1) There are still many people who don't believe in climate change, they are a minority, but a powerful minority.

2) The UN is not democratic: nations do not get a number of seats based on their population size and undemocratic countries get voting rights, so it doesn't really matter if most common people believe in climate change if they live in the wrong countries.

3) Trying to pervert the fight against climate change into yet another form of development "aid", scares the richer countries away from the fight. Besides, nature won't be bought off.

4) Politicians (and the public) are often clueless about which measures really constitute effective change (solar panels, fusion power, insulating homes, electric cars, plant-based plastics) and which measures only look good (wind power, CO2-storage, hybrid cars, 0.2% power usage reduction, tweating about the environment from your iPhone that you replace every 6 months while its production uses numerous heavy metals and other pollutants). For some reason scientists are being kept out of the loop, and that's holding back most meaningful efforts.

Given the fatalaties, delays, etc from the harsh EARLY winter in europe this year, I'm wondering if anyone is discussing what can/should be done about the harshness of winters?

@modernJan
It is precisely the "illumiantti" who see themselves above the common man riff-raff that people have ralied against and fight this global warming fantasy every inch of the way.
Imagine the hubris that you actually think you can affect the planet's climate. Steve is right with his example of volcano's spewing more pollution into the atmosphere than any nation can possible think of reducing.

@Claudia Bradshaw
The headline and body of the article say two different things and say it in such a convoluted manner that it is no wonder people know that global warming is a fantasy.
Additionally the increasing number of global warming euphamisms trying to find one that resonates further convinces people that if the earth is warming it is because of the hot air being blown by the hysterical global warming fanatics.

This question implies a failure to appreciate the many different ways in which people govern themselves and perhaps even of the ways in which other things work as well. “Go” in almost all of its meanings suggests departure. “Dance” implies rhythmic movement; but whether accompanied by pleasant music or shots from a revolver is open to question. “Governance” includes everything from virtual anarchy to absolute dictatorial slavery. Many places, including the US, have governance that overtly encourages business activities and business interests that covertly seek and receive favored governmental treatment. Energy is big business and big business generates big money, which generates big marketing and governance without consideration of scientific realities. The fact that 95% of people, for or against, have almost zero understanding of the hard sciences, much less an appreciation for the amalgamation and interplay of scientific disciplines necessary fully to understand climate change doesn’t help matters. Of course, a few people do well understand enough to know we are in deep trouble. Unfortunately they are less numerous, less well-paid, and decidedly less glamorous than all over-paid sports stars, rock stars, lawyers, CEO’s, politicians, movie and TV celebrities, and even most BBC broadcast journalists. Even when being feted for great successes, they’re the ones left studying the potted plants in corner of the Ball Room. This celebration is no exception. As a practicing scientist I find it very difficult not simply to say to the lot of humanity, “Go and good riddance.”
g

@Steve

Didn't you read the news: Israel (pretty close to Europe) is going up in flames because of a very hot and dry weather, so the weather in Europe is indeed a localized and temporary phenomenon.

Again, here is an example of "What is stopping us". 8 comments here. 6 of which are made by 3 people who deny the facts and cling to avant-garde stories about skewed evidence. They are a minority and vocal and tell people what they want to hear. When it comes to behavior, humans are 100% more likely to believe information that confirms their desired beliefs then information in opposition. No matter how irrational that information may be.

Example, if a person comes home with a $30,000 SUV do you think they are willing to believe A) they can’t afford it and B) it is contributing to the descent of the planet towards inhabitability. OR are they willing to believe The economy will eventually pick up, and climate change still hasn’t been proven.

We are going to have to change the very nature of humanity in order to make a difference. OR, stop offering these products. Which will mean a lot of wealthy and powerful people have to give up their wealth and power. Neither seem likely without “divine intervention” or natural corrections.

@Steve

Didn't you read the news: Israel (pretty close to Europe) is going up in flames because of a very hot and dry weather, so the weather in Europe is indeed a localized and temporary phenomenon.

--

There have been forest fires since the existence of forests. They too are natural phenomenon that even serves a purpose for the planet, though when people are living nearby, they can get killed.

Your argument that it is "localized" doesn't make sense because while it's freezing in canada in February, it's hot as hell in Australia because it's summer there.

The man made global warming advocates are the first to say that bad winters is just "weather" while they shout that a hurricane is evidence of global warming and is not just weather.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

At a local level it is often cheaper and more convenient to do wasteful things. At a larger scale, these add up. Industrial commercialized countries will push to environmental when the technology gets there. Unfortunately, it needs support to proceed.

What do you expect? An agreement of more then 190 countries. It is always somebody else who should make the first step.

What is the point in reducing emissions, when China/USA (choose whatever country you like) are doing nothing?
Why should I save energy while my neighbour is driving a SUV and wasting energy in an uninsulated house?

There will be weather fluctuations no matter what we do, just because there is a day where temperature is 110F and other day when temperature is -30F does not give us the entire picture. We have to understand that weather is unpredictable and therefore weatherman/woman have jobs to tell us the forecast and we can't base our argument whether the earth is warming or it isn't solely upon that.
The polar ice cap is melting, there are no glaciers left in Bolivia anymore, the ferocity of the floods due to melting Himalayan glaciers in Bangladesh has increased even though the average monsoon rainfalls have not changed at all, the sea level is rising which is evident in small island nations like Maldives, these are irrefutable evidences that there is an adverse climate change that is happening and for some reason the pace has quickened rapidly since the 1970’s rather than centuries before that. What changed? The total GDP of the world in 1970 was $2.5 trillions and in 2006 was $46.82 trillion (not adjusted for inflation). That is the most rapid economic growth worldwide ever since the invention of the first commercial steam engine in UK in 1693 by Thomas Savery.
We did not progress from the stone age because we ran out of stones, we do not progress from the bronze age because we ran out of bronze, we just found something better.
But we will be stuck in the oil age forever or only move backwards because WE WILL RUN OUT OF OIL!!

Regarding climate change why we aren't doing enough?

Human beings are basically greedy, we care about our prosperity more than we care about nature. The only time we care about nature is when it actually in turn effects our habitat/existence i.e. too much VOC and NO2 in the air that causes smog, or if there is mercury or arsenic in our drinking water system, if there is a oil spill that hurts tourism or fishing industries, etc.
That I think is possibly the simplest explanation I can give explaining the collective inaction of the human race.
Whether we regulate CO2 emissions due to burning gas/oil/coal, the fact is we will run out of fossil fuels some day and the rate of deforestation is much quicker than the pace at which the trees can grow back even though it is a renewable resource, period!

@#7 PilotDan

Sure, how about next time a physicist makes a breakthrough we'll hold a refrendum: if the publics likes the idea it will be accept, otherwise the physicist will have to retract his claim. Then Kansas schools can teach children that Adam rode on dinosaur backs in Eden. Don't tell a scientist what is and isn't true unless you actually understand what he's talking about. Nothing is keeping you from reading some college-level textbooks about physics and meteorology, so don't give me that "illuminati" BS.

P.S. humans emit far more greenhouse gases than volcanoes (about a hundred times more), the only exception may come from supervolcanoes, the last of which erupted 70.000 years ago and caused massive climate change that lasted for 1000 years as well as the extinction of many species (even humanity was reduced to a few thousand souls around that time, according to DNA-evidence).

@ Guido, Comment #16

I don't think you have ever heard about INDIVIDUAL RESPOSIBILITY!!

For e.g. just because you were abused as a child, does that give you a right to abuse your children? Think about it!

By the way if you drive a fuel efficient car and not an SUV you can save money on buying that extra gasoline and if you have an insulated house you save on electricity bills.
Didn't you know this? Or you just like being ignorant?

@Guido: Yes, when everyone (and most people do) have that mindset, nothing will happen. As the largest economy in the world the US should step up and just press everything, but that won't happen likely as that is political suicide, not to mention would be hypocritical.

Money

Money and apathy

It will cost governments money therefore us! That is a vote loser so it wil never happen but also apathy on the part of people.

Other than sorting glass paper and plastics if you require people to actually get off their backsides and do something REAL or make them change their greedy and selfish lifestyles then you have no way to overcome the inertia of that. People say oh yeah i want to help but in reality if it disturbs their comfortable lifestyle which it must do or cost them money... then forget it! NO WAY.

Until the worst happens and we suffer from violent weather upheavals or other of the consequences of our destructive lifestyles and either up to our necks in water or squatting in a dustbowl and broiling in the sun.. of course then it will be too late and who will we have to blame about that....?

Ultimately people just dont care. Especially if they have to do something themselves.

We are not going to see much effective results from the Climate Change Conference. The politicians, leaders and attendees have to answer to the companies in their respective countries. They pay the bills and the leaders know it.

We will have to rely on the average person to get anything done!

As for the non-believers in man made climate change. You don't have to stick your nose next to the exhaust of a car. You don't have to walk through a metal plating house, were the workers faces are red from inhaling chemical fumes and vapors. You don't have to review all the emission reports supplied by ever company in industry.

All you have to do is hope on the web, bring up the news for any big city like Phoenix today showing the skyline shrouded in particulate matter and use a little common sense to realize that all the man made pollution is having a negative effect on the climate we rely on!!

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Lets get it right

CLIMATE CHANGE

not global warming is more apt and what is really the problem

I am tired of those armchair pundits who think theyre being clever when they whine about the cold severe winters in Europe. Increase in CO2 means altered weather patterns some will heat up others will cool.

That is the reality of the situation, that things will change and with more energy in the system then that energy has to be redistributed somehow.

Are we getting the message yet?

That "Fun Theory" is interesting.

Essentially it is the opposite of the idea of the Abraham religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, of using threats and punishments to change and control peoples behavior. Threats and punishments tend to get weird reactions and avoidance and rebellious counter behaviors.

I think it is more effective to give positive feedback and positive reinforcement of desired behaviors because it tends to get a willing buy-in for the changes.

I think Positive Psychology is a better way to go and Wikipedia has an article about it.

Re Climate Change, "what is stopping us", answer "Pure Economics", whereby each country looks to its own economic interests and one way or another find it counter productive to comply.

"The man made global warming advocates are the first to say that bad winters is just "weather" while they shout that a hurricane is evidence of global warming and is not just weather."

Hurricanes are getting stronger and more plentiful, I can't exactly say the same for harsh European winters. Winters have become noticeably less harsh and more rainy here, while summers have gotten warmer (and it's not just a feeling, almost every year heat records are broken). This year, like the 13 years before it (and the 10 years before that), there won't be an "Elfstedentocht" in the Netherlands, which used to be (mid-20th century) an almost annual phenomenon. Sure we have lots of snow now, but it's hardly like the winter of '97. Snow doesn't equate cold, it doesn't even have to freeze for snow to fall.

Another issue with this is that it will lead to unlimited nanny statism. The government just going overboard with telling people who they can live their lives.

It is corruption that prevents governments from taking the actions necessary to avert or mitigate climate change.
Industries that supply our fossil fuel energy which is responsible for much of the CO2, are shielded from their actual costs, direct and indirect, so the costs to the public for heating, cooling and transportation are artificially suppressed and we are, thus, encouraged to use energy wastefully. If the price of gasoline, coal and natural gas reflected the real costs, which include military spending, environmental cleanup, health and social disruption, then we would all do our best to use less energy. The US government, and many others, are too beholden to powerful industry and those industries do everything they can to control pricing so that we continue our wasteful consumption.
But we also play a powerful roll in preventing action: We will not elect a leader who gives us bad news or suggests that we have responsibilities other than consumption and every time we buy a wasteful car, drive too fast, waste heat or cool in our houses, we deliver a loud message that energy is not too expensive so keep doing what you've been doing. They control the supply, we control the demand.

Years ago I took a series of Small Business Courses and in the part about Marketing they pointed out that no matter what "Features" a product or service has, what matters to the consumer is how it "Benefits" them.

So it seems to me that the "selling" of the idea of action about climate change needs to be done in a way that shows the people of the world how they will "Benefit" from whatever actions are taken.

And that is where I tend to agree with Bjorn Lomborg about looking at and studying out the economic effects of whatever actions are taken.

And figuring out Cui Bono, Who Benefits, of course involves the Fossil Fuel Carbon burning industries that are causing our problems.

It is astonishing to me the number of folks who will casually weigh in pro or con on such a complex subject as anthropogenic climate change, when they would quietly accept the pronouncements of a neurosurgeon about strategies of brain surgery upon a loved one. It isn’t the vigor of responses or their direction to which I object; but to their construction upon a foundation of absolutely nothing approaching political or scientific logic.
g

It is the ideal political football. When studies begun in the 50's began to show an alarming trend, the environmental community began to call for legislation to force yet more change on the companies they had fought over pollution. Instead of focusing on educating and changing the demands of the consumer they became a threat to industry, who then turned to their traditional political allies who saw in it an opportunity they couldn't pass up. Large sums are spent on convincing voters that the issue is a bogus invention of the liberal left who are intent on imposing socialism at the cost of the economy.
And when the question is framed in terms of truth or fiction, science is an easy target. Scientific theories are judged on their usefullness, not on whether or not they prove an idea beyond all doubt, and science does a terrible job in explaining to the public how the scientific method works. The result of all this is that now, despite what has become an overwhelming flood of confirming evidence, a large portion of the voting public doubts the message because of who they see as the messenger.

In Southern California when they pointed out a water shortage and asked everyone to conserve they pointed out how much money we can save.
People pitched in and conserved.
Water districts lost so much revenue they raised rates.
People became so disgusted conservation went out the window.
No matter what we do thje climate will not change and but there is no doubt our taxes will increase, politicians will continue to spend this "new" revenue stream and we will only end up worse off.
Has any liberal hysteria ever resulted in anyones living standard improving?

The host said that people aren't taking steps to "prevent climate change" so you've entirely bought into that all climate change is man made, and that there is no natural climate change that has always existed.

How can you prevent something that happens naturally? be honest and ask the question how we can MINIMIZE our impact on climate change. Saying that we can prevent climate change is dishonest at best.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Throwing away a fridge can cause the refrigerants to leak, and if they are OLD, they could have CFCs in them and would deplete ozone if it leakes out.

I had an old fridge when I was in law school 11 years ago and one day my fridge broke, and the refrigerant leakd out, and I felt incredibly guilty until I replaced it with a newer fridge..

You have to dispose of them properly, which is a serious hassle.

Simple....big business and the fossil fuel industry would have to be responsible for the issues they cause and the politicians who are supposed to represent the interest of the people betray them. No different than what happened with banking and financial services. When they figure out a way for the citizens to pay for the problems created by industries they will move forward. It is the private sector that receives the most "welfare" from the state. That makes the term Private Sector and interesting name.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

It is important to educate people on the difference between "Climate" and "Weather." The fundamental misunderstanding about the difference perpetuates ignorance with respect to climate change issues!

Your guest who says that poor people shoulud throw away their inefficient stoves and buy new efficient ones.

With what money?

These western do gooders are completely clueless!

@ Steve, comment #38

I never knew you had a guilty conscience!! LOL

By the way, you felt bad and that is the goal isn't it. If you leave it upto to people to do the right thing, it dosen't always happen, you are a prime example. Therefore you need regulation. I see the argument behind the so called 'nanny state', but isn't public welfare a responsibility of an 'effective government'.

It's not a liberal issue, but a welfare issue!

How could someone who works in Washington, DC who lives 40 miles away, walk to work? If you knew anything about the cost of housing here, that it's incredibly expensive, and lots of people cannot afford to live here. If MORE people moved closer to be in "walking distance" the cost of living would go up even more. That's great she can walk everywhere, but not everyone can, and she's incredibly wrong to judge those who drive.

As confirmed, "with a stick, just do it"

Nanny statism...

Only people with rock bottom self esteem want to be controlled by others.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

@ Steve, comment 45:

Of course they couldn't walk to work if you live 40 miles away. But if we build a better public transport system like the subway or a bus network most people will still be able to use that and lead to less cars on the street, less congestion and less pollution as a return.
It doesn not mean that people won't have cars, if they can afford it they should buy it.
A car mileage/gallon average = 25, a bus milage/gallon = 8,
Car, no of passengers = 1(typically), no of passengers in a bus = 20+.

Tell me what is more efficent?

The biggest issue is that even if you think climate change is a hoax you's still want meaningful steps to be taken towards a greener economy because it lessens Western dependence on the Middle-East and Russia and will create jopbs in the West.

Well, we know that people can change our ways, we don't kill whales and boil the oil out of them for fueling our oil lamps anymore.

Henh, I can imagine the howls from Conservatives that whales weren't really going extinct, and that the death of whales was not really man caused but really the natural work of God, and that they didn't want a nanny-state to stop them from killing whales and force them to change their energy source to Fossil Petroleum Oil. But Conservatives did eventually "change" and reluctantly adopt Petroleum Oil, first for their lamps, then for powering machines, automobiles and trucks, and then railroad trains.

So we know it can be done, the only questions are how and when.

I suggest that "Education, Education, Education" is the answer.

China's One Child Policy, and the enforcement of that policy, was and is draconian but without it China would not be enjoying the prosperity and power it now has.

There are too many people in the world already, and if we don't get a handle on population growth all our other efforts will be useless. When we hear about flooding in Pakistan, we hear about how a destitute family with eight kids has been washed out. When we hear about the effects of overgrazing in sub-Saharan Africa, we hear about how the patriarch will think about how to lessen those effects, but only after he has a few more sons. When we hear about how a pair of Palestinian brothers have been bombed out and have moved back into their parents' home, we hear about how they have 18 children between them.

We can ponder on all the ways there are to cut down on how humans affect the climate of our planet. People in rich countries can cut down on energy consumption. People in poor countries can stop using noxious chemicals to harvest valuable minerals to sell to rich countries.

I abhor the Chinese regime's philosophy, methods, and actions. But the bottom line is that they DO have a point in their efforts to control their population. The bible tells us to go forth and multiply. We've done that, to our peril.

Carbon foot-print points, efforts to stop deforestation, efforts to control chemical and nuclear materials are all well and good. But none of those efforts will make any difference in the long run if we cannot stop the explosion of the human population on our planet.

Teach birth control. Empower women make their own reproductive decisions. Cut down on the number of babies born into a world that has diminishing resources. If we can do that, we might stand a chance.

@Steve

Unless you're a hermit in a cabin, selling wood and beaverhides in the nearest town, spending the money you earn in an internet cafe to post your messages on whys then you're already a client of the "nanny-state". The idea that every man can fend for himself and at the same time contribute to contemporary society has been a myth since the late 19th century. Go visit Somalia or Afghanistan if you want to see what life is like without a government to "interfere". The truth is (if you don't live in a city-center) you probably drink water from pipes that were laid down by government decree and you don't die from drinking that water because the government issued safety regulations and "interferes" to enforce them, the same goes for your electricity supply, and guess what, your highschool teachers didn't work for free. If we let everything up to corporations we would live in a Mad Max-style world, so you have to admit it's a good thing the government "interferes" through safety regulations and the like. The oil companies don't care if we all start shooting each other over the last drops of gasoline, as long as they make their money.

Steve, you said in Comment #5: "Given the fatalaties, delays, etc from the harsh EARLY winter in europe this year, I'm wondering if anyone is discussing what can/should be done about the harshness of winters?

Steve, the coldest temperatures in this current cold snap were recorded in La Brevine, 20 minutes from my home. Still only 20 minutes away even in the harshest of weather conditions. I walked the mile to my town's center in sub-zero (Centigrade) temperatures, in the driving snow, and then walked home again. No muss, no fuss. The only effect the cold and snow had on me was that I did not buy the pointsettia plant I wanted, because the blooms would have wilted in the sub-zero temps on my mile-long walk home.

You see, Steve, we are prepared for extreme conditions here. My town has state of the art snow removal equipment. All of us who live here can suit up to meet the harshest of winter conditions. We look at the chaos in Britain, and even in Geneva less than two hours away, with something approaching contemptuous complaceny.

We KNOW we're going to get hit with low temperatures and heavy snows. We pay really outrageous taxes to buy the snow removal equipment and to pay for the work crews. We have no arable land here. No natural resources. Except for the work-ethic and tenacity of the people who live in this harsh climate.

From my vantage point in the Swiss Jura Mountains, I think we could do with a lot less blame and fuss, and a lot more nose-to-the-grind-stone.

I have a really hard time taking all of the posturing and play-acting rhetoric going on in Cancun very seriously.

Climate change is, and has always been, a fact of physics on this and other planets. Whether the change is more drastic now than ever before in history has been shown to be very hard to determine, using the record from the glaciers. The human contribution to CO2 levels has been shown to be a very, very small percentage of the total generated by the ecosystem (~3 percent). And no one ever seems to bother to consider that fact, to refute it, or to explain credibly why it isn't important.

Which leads me to believe, politicians feel it is in their best self-interest to show they are "doing something," and they couldn't care less whether this spinning of wheels actually accomplishes anything. And the press, naturally, find it in their best self-interest to play right along.

Meanwhile, I have been taking public transportation to and from work for decades, do not own a ridiculous behemoth SUV or truck for my private transportation, drive myself sparingly, and can clearly see that many of those creating this high drama are being hyprocrites on the above points. So, what am I to believe?

Here we reuse things most of the time - things like cotton towels for years & years! People from poor & developing countries know the value of money & food - so they don't waste much!
Why talks on climate are failing? Don't the developed counties know? They don't do much for tackling the climate change despite contributing lots to disturb natural balances but tell the poor & developing countries to do it. If only they practice before preaching others everybody would listen!

Modern Jan you miss the point - we are having this fire in such a terrible extent because all of the rain that should come to us is falling as snow in Europe

Is this the final nail in the coffin for climate change?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-us-manipulated-climate-accord

Leader, (elected or unelected):

"Hey people, these scientists have got all these computers, equations and stuff and they say that unless you dramatically reduce your standard of living, or your aspirations to have a better standard of living, your grandchildren will fry"

People: "Get some news scientists".

Leader, (elected or unelected):

"Now listen people, these scientists are right so unfortunately I have to take measures which will involve reducing your current and future standard of living"

People: "Try that and we'll get a new leader"

The same as what's stopping a smoker from giving up the addiction.
The consequences of some of our actions are too far away to be of tangible concern. Out of sight out of mind.
The Surgeon General is telling us we are dying a slow painful death, but we happily light another one up. We are addicted to this lifestyle and won't change it until we have an equally satisfying and accessible alternative. Which we don't. Even if we did, we'd still die because from China's passive smoking.
This is a global problem that needs global cooperation to achieve a global solution. We're all waiting for someone else to make a first move, but we all know the first one to move will carry the biggest risk and will potentially be the biggest loser.

It doesn not mean that people won't have cars, if they can afford it they should buy it.
A car mileage/gallon average = 25, a bus milage/gallon = 8,
Car, no of passengers = 1(typically), no of passengers in a bus = 20+.

Tell me what is more efficent?
----

Do you have any idea how long it would take a bus to go 40 miles? A 3-4 hour commute each way? Would you want to spend 6-8 hours of your day commuting? There would be mass suicides.

The reality is while these ideas might work in small countries, it's not realistic in large countries.

If you have more and more people moving to the cities where the jobs are, then the cost of housing will go up and up and up and you'll spend virtually all of your income just on housing.. To have any decent quality of life, people move away to where housing costs are cheaper, but then that means a commute. If you then suggest "telecommute" to work, then that means your job is outsourceable, and we'll just have a lot more jobless people.

We have been in formed about climate for the past decade, as yet nothing constructive has been agreed, its no wonder why not. Climate change since it has been realised is like a railway train that started several years ago and has been picking up speed and going faster and faster so that today nothing has been done or agreed upon to slow it down. Why?, the 2 main offenders China and the USA, find it counter productive and aginst their economic interest to seriously do something about it. Thats the way it is and it will remain the same. China with its huge economic advance and the USA with its economic downturn are caught 'between the devil and th deep blue sea'.

Hi, WHYS, it would be nice if there was an “agree” button. It would save me from supporting some of posts that deserve it.

Agreed with all of these. Guido (16) I like the sarcasm, Chintan in Houston (18), ModernJan (49), David G (58) ROTF!!

Donnamarie (51) I stand up and applauded this post!! I was just pointing out in another thread that at our current rate of growth. By 2070 we will have twice as many people on the Earth then there is today. Twice as many people in the US by 2080. As we encourage more people to become more like “Us”, we are encouraging more consumers, polluters, and disbelievers. (this figure based on 1.2% population growth rate applied to doubling factor of T1= LOG2/ 1.2) Of course the problem becomes if population reduction is identified as way to reduce climate change, how do we do it? Having children, heath care, disease control, and safety activism are “sacred rights”. However, advocating war, promoting disease, genocide, and allowing starvation are all considered are considered cruel and inhumane. So what is it going to be?

Steve (57), Did you read that article. The only thing it pointed to was that the then administration tried really hard to push the lucrative “cap and trade” policies. Nothing about actual scientist “skewing data”.

I think people need more direct feedback. One thing the BBC could do is on all their news programmes, display the current CO2 level on the screen all the time, say in the top right corner. It would need to be a local figure for better feedback. Perhaps it could be measured directly above Broadcasting House? It could turn red if it had increased when compared with the previous day or green for a decrease. It could also be displayed on all of the BBC's weather forecasts and the front page of their online news services. We really do have so little time to get this sorted. Everyone needs to be involved.

#63

Maybe we should all kill ourselves because we exhale CO2?

"""Maybe we should all kill ourselves because we exhale CO2?"""

Suicide is OK when you kill yourself and nobody else. Suicide by killing yourself and all around you is anything but OK.

So YES, making man extinct and let the other species better off without this predator is far more decent than continuing a process that eventually destroys the habitat of all species on the planet.

ASTONISHING how many have swallowed raw the propaganda from Big Oil, Big Coal & CO that climate scientists are totally wrong and know nothing of their trade.....
Hence they prefer to accept as true undocumented PR fiction rather than facts published in high standard objective scientific magazines. Science and professional knowledge are just water on a duck's back to them.

Just as religious fanatics believe god created life on earth a few thousand yrs ago
climate deniers prefer to think their map is right and the terrain wrong.

Follow the money was enough to make people disbelieve the Big Tobacco propaganda smoking is good for their health.
Follow the money is not enough to make people disbelieve the Big Oil/Coal propaganda filling the air with CO2 is good for the health of the planet.
WHY?

The western world is reluctant to do anything about climate change, because at the moment you can make far more money by destroying the planet than by fixing it up.
To reduce the carbon going into the atmosphere we will all have to go without our luxuries.
As soon as our patriarchal society admits to itself that we can survive without our male Gods, but we cannot survive without our Mother Earth, the Governments of the world might start doing something about climate change.
Cheers Wadoe
Qld Australia

I was surprised by the answers given to the question "is capitalism the problem" . The panelists made the classic mistake of immediately using the word 'Democracy' in place of Capitalism. They are simply not the same. A feudal system is capitalistic, but not democratic and having a vote every few years is not necessarily democratic. We had an example of this in Australia in 2007. The labour party was voted into office with a mandate to put an effective price on carbon. The prime minister Kevin Rudd described climate change as "the greatest moral challenge of our time". Opinion polls show that around 70% of Australians supported action to reduce the countries very high carbon emissions. What happened next was weeks of negotiation with Business leaders and in particular leaders of the fossil fuels industries. These talks where always behind closed doors. The result was a heavily watered down carbon trading scheme that was unacceptable to most parties and failed to get the support in the parliament. Democracy is not just the concept of 'One person one vote'. as I hope I have demonstrated how easily this can be corrupted. No, democracy is underpinned by the concept of 'One vote one value' and powerfull fossil fuel companies having automatic (closed door] access to government and influence over policy development does not meet this criterea.

Do human beings have the capacity to evolve,emotionally ,intellectually and spiritually? Of course we have the innate ability as individuals to change. But collectively as a race it seems we are stuck when it comes to changing our life style but this was not always true. We went from the horse and buggy to the automobile by making a evolutionary shift. For thousands of years horses and donkeys were the most commons mode of transportation as well as walking until the 20th century, The polar ice caps are melting and so are glaciers. The earth is heating up. Still we are mired down in a mind set that does not want to change from one form of energy to another that would greatly enhance our quality of life and save the planet. We can only imagine how the prophet Noah's neighbors felt when they saw him building a huge ark. They must have thought "We haven't even had a thunderstorm in ages. Noah must be deluded. Climate change on the scale that Noah foresees?You can always count on Noah for a good laugh. Oh, is that thunder I hear in the sky? Guess we'll get a little rain. Nothing to worry about. Help! We are all drowning!" .

I still don't get how people can buy into "climate change", formerly "global warming", formerly "global cooling", etc etc. Science (real science) teaches us that the earth was much warmer in the past, and, guess what? Life flourished. During colder climates, it dies out. The reason? Simple biochemistry. Chemical reactions (including mutations) increase with heat. This causes escalated cancer, but also escalated levels of benificial mutations. This drives evolution, rather than tempering it (or halting it) as cooling does. As any economist knows, there is a price (or sacrifice) for progress. Heat is good for life. Cold, not so much.
The polar ice caps are melting? GREAT. They are supposed to be. We are still moving out of the last ice age. I'm still not sure how this vital peice of information keeps escaping being reported. During some of the greatest periods in life's history on earth, there were no caps. Inbetween ice ages, THERE ARE NO CAPS. The earth is healthy as it cycles back into warmth. We're just gonna have to learn to cope with warmer weather and swampier land. It'll happen no matter what legislative laws are passed. Nature doesn't adhere to man's laws.
And since when are we gods? We're part of the environment! I find the arrogant idea that we should care for the environment appauling. Who do we think we are? Everyday I read articles about how humans are trying to help animals on the brink of extinction, and stop animals that have a "negative impact" on the environment (ie; they're too successful). What happened to natural selection? Animals that succeed should be allowed to flourish, even if it's at the cost of other species! That's how evolution works, for god sakes! Let the weak die, otherwise they will muck up the gene pool! Allow the successful to succeed! And that includes humans! Soon you have progress!
Personally I think humans put their own comfort in too high a regaurd. We're pacifying ourselves trying to cling to the world as we know it, and not letting it progress. Maybe we're afraid some other species will evolve and usurp us.
Sorry. I do not now, nor will I ever buy into the man-made-global-temperature-crisis lie. I only subscribe to real science, logic, and rational thought. Hopefully Al Gore will read a science book if he wants to continue crossing science and politics. Perhaps the scientific establishment will go back to science one day, instead of continuing this chaarade (more than likely continued currently for political and monetary gains). I doubt it though.