Feeds

back to article World leaders meet to tackle global warming

World leaders are set to meet today to discuss the effects of climate change and possible political measures to tackle it. The meeting will see representatives from 150 countries, 80 of them being heads of state, converge on the UN in New York. UN climate chief Yvo de Boer said he expected the meeting to express the sense of …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
Anonymous Coward

Uh ...

But won't the collective output of false promises, misinterpretated pseudo-science, interest-funded "independent studies" and meme infections blow so much hot air from said meeting it will only *contribute* to said global warming ?

Oh well, at least the (legalized) ecoterror groups like Greenpeace and their associated "green" lobby get more dollars to spread more lies ...

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Its like what fuckhead above said

'Innit

0
0

Urgency demands an immediate response

Urgency is the operating term. Eight years have passed without a significant global response to global warming. To make up for lost time, a crash program similar to the Global Open Source Initiative proposal which can be downloaded from http://sandrewsjr.net/gosi/proposal/ (bandwidth permitting) should be undertaken. We appear to be facing a potentially devastating situation.

Sumner

0
0

Lies?

"Oh well, at least the (legalized) ecoterror groups like Greenpeace and their associated "green" lobby get more dollars to spread more lies ..."

Stick that crap up your Northwest Passage. Unless we act now your children will die starving. Climate change isn't just happening, it's accelerating.

0
0

Luddites?

I've been watching the GW commentary in the The Register for a while. For an audience of so-called technologists and problem solvers, why all the moaning?

It seems to me that GW, real or imagined, means lots of interesting work for those that want it.

As for the cost? Our governments flush lots of money on things with little or no return. At least the money spent on GW has potential for a return. Any technologies developed to address GW issues would have market value regardless of the GW status.

0
0

GWB = "Big Dubya" or "Global Warming B*llS*t"?

There is no such thing as global warming, global cooling or meteors. Deny it all you like, but nothing in the universe *ever* *ever* *EVER* changes.

Especially not aminals. There is no evolution, and no extinction either; dinosaurs are still around, just look at the Neoconosaurus for proof. (That is, if faith is not enough for you).

0
0
Anonymous Coward

WFT

IT angle?

0
0

GW is the biggest threat to the world

@Elisa - I read your whole post thinking GW was short for George Dubya, before I realised that you might mean something else. The GW status is thankfully getting more doubtful by the day and will hopefully be eliminated in 2008.

0
0

Um...

GW will mean longer growing seasons and thus MORE food, not less. Children won't be starving because of GW, they will be getting fatter. And that means more flatulence which some scientists are already blaming for global warming. Which means hotter temperatures, because methane is a much bigger greenhouse gas than CO2. And then cycle of fat children-warmer earth continues unabated.

And someone better tell the Southern Hemisphere to get with the program. South Africa had snow for the first time in decades and about 2 months of below normal temperatures. Didn't they get the memo? The earth is getting warmer and we're responsible so please give people who prophesy doom and gloom more money. After all, no crisis, no funding.

0
0

Good thing George wont be attending

otherwise they would have to change the name

..UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is to deliver a keynote address at the meeting, entitled "The Future in Our Hands: Addressing the Leadership Challenged on Climate Change".

0
0

What I find most irritating...

...is the people who don't understand *anything* about global warming, who nevertheless make ridiculous claims based on something they heard on the radio once, probably coming from some whack-job American conservative who is paid to keep the pollution flowing.

Global warming will mean more food... heh. God. Go look at the best available models for what the world looks like in 100 years. Twenty minutes on a web site will save you making a total ass out of yourself in public.

(Hints: Water. Desert. Topsoil.)

-fred

0
0

@Fred Fnord

"Go look at the best available models for what the world looks like in 100 years. Twenty minutes on a web site will save you making a total ass out of yourself in public."

Fred, take a look at the best models for what the world will look like in 100 minutes and try to work out how accurate your 100 year models might be. If meteorologists don't know what the whether's going to do tomorrow what chance do they have of guessing what will happen in 100 years time based on trends that aren't completely understood. Let's face it, no-one knows what's going to happen, no-one knows what impact people are having on the environment, no-one knows what our attempts to solve it will have. What if stopping all of our pollution, cutting methane output, cutting CO2 output causes an ice age? We don;t know enough about the environment to be able to actually control or even influence it that heavily.

0
0

CC not GW

The naming of this problem isn't helpful - Climate Change is more correct. "Global Warming" as a concept is almost secretly welcomed by many in the grey wet climes of the UK and Ireland - and this misnomer also feeds ignorant comments like those from Wade Burchette - "South Africa had snow for the first time in decades and about 2 months of below normal temperatures". Yupp Wade, those are unusual circumstances and should be considered further evidence that something isn't right with our climate. Despite the misleading name, you have probably pointed out further evidence of the Climate Change phenomenon commonly referred to as Global Warming.

0
0

@Jonathan Lane

You're confusing Weather with Climate.

Predictions about whether there'll be a tailback on your commute route tomorrow morning aren't the same kind of predictions as whether there'll be less or more cars on the road ten years from now.

Now; I have some very attractive seaside retirement properties in low-lying countries that I'm sure you'll find most attractive...

0
0

I'm with Jonathan

Climate change is not something new - it's been happening since the world began. When the Vikings arrived in Greenland it was, er, green. They left when it got colder, but AFAIK, they didn't blame the local blacksmith or farting animals...

0
0

Climate change is not a problem

... not for the planet at any rate. In the past this planet has been hotter, colder, and even had a considerably different atmospheric makeup (more oxygen before there were many land dwelling vertibrates - must have been some hellish forest fires).

There have even been a few major mass extinction events, with the dino's going bye bye as the most recent (although it could be argued that we're causing one right now) - the Earth is actually pretty dynamic if you look at it on a geological timescale.

It's not just "Bang!" - 50% of all species drop dead; it takes a bit of time, a few million years for instance. Since hominids have only been recording history (in some parts of the world) for the last 5000 years or so we should not really have seen anything change globally in the entirety of recorded history. This is if we were having the same sort of impact on the planet as the rest of the species on it.

If we can actually notice the climate changing in one of our paltry 100 year (normally less) lifespans, it might be reasonable to assume that something pretty drastic is happening, pretty quickly. It won't really bother the planet overly much in the long term, just the organic stuff on it may have a few short term problems over the next few thousand years or so.

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.