15000 delegates from 200 countries, more security that the front door of Caspers back in the day - what the chuff is the carbon footprint of that!!

Its all ok and nothing to worry about Gordon Brown will be planting a few trees later.

Just read this from the BBC, i see the media machine has done its job then.

"In the survey, by Globescan, 64% of people questioned said that they considered global warming a very serious problem - up 20% from a 1998 poll.

To stress the importance of the summit, 56 newspapers in 45 countries are publishing the same editorial on Monday, warning that climate change will "ravage our planet" unless action is agreed, the London-based Guardian reported.

The editorial - to be published in 20 languages - has been thrashed out by editors ahead of the Copenhagen talks, the newspaper said"

Are you seriously saying you think it's all a question of media hype??

If so, words fail me.

No I am not questioning global warming but not on the scale the media says also they use very clever wording when talking about climate change. The media say that scientists providing evidence that its not a bad as we think "claim that" and others supporting the argument have "proven that" its subtle but it works.

Are you choosing to ignore the fact that doubt has been thrown on the supposed scientific evidence upon which the media and political hype has been based and which I believe is now subject to some kind of inquiry?

If so, words fail me.

So, someone hacks an email server containing tens of thousands of emails and picks bits of out some that seem to question the integrity of those involved. This has been taken by some elements of the media and generally right wing politicians to disabuse us all of the idea of man-made global warming.

Never mind that the vast majority of the scientific community totally agree with the premise of man made global warming, we are now all supposed to doubt it and therby not act globally to help prevent it? And the fact, thats FACT, that the oil and, particuly US, coal industry are against any action with may affect turnover is not a contributory factor? And that the political, social and economic changes that may be forced upon us due to failing oil supplies and rising temperatures are extremely unpalatable and unpopular - easier just to stick our collective fingers in our ears and pretend everythings fine and carry on?

Or are you just fishing again Mr R

There are just as much evidence to say climate change (to the extent people are banging on about it) is incorrect but as you well know that isnt pushed by the media.

I don't think this sentence means anything. If it means anything, what it means is contradictory.

There's no point saying 'there's just as much evidence for as against'.....without mentioning any facts. There's no point mentioning 'the extent to which people are banging on about it', while in the next breath implying that other people aren't banging on about it at all. Again, if a point of view isn't 'pushed by the media', how do you know about it? Get the ball on the floor, man.

Then pop along to those countries that are disappearing under the sea and tell the chaps there that it's only their imagination that their houses are being submerged.

I assume that you on about places like Bangledesh etc, what about the other countries that are potentially being positively affected such as Greenland can now grow crops etc so the world balances things out. I know about the other areas of research that arnt pushed by the media as I choose to read them myself. You cant tell me there is an equal argument and coverage of media between the two as its just plain wrong.

People jump of the bandwagon with this "green" lobby, the Toyota Prius being one of the biggest myths going to prevent global warming. something like 80% of all the green-house gases are produced by cattle so why isnt there a big heave-ho apporach to culling them all. The reason is that no one will make any money off that idea

Right, so now we're in agreement about countries like Bangladesh.
But again you're being contradictory, Compo. Either global warming is a 'real' phenomenon or it isn't. You seem now to be admitting it is, despite saying you've read 'evidence' to the contrary.
I've no idea whether other countries would become more 'habitable'...as a result of warming, but even if they are, an enormous amount of planning would be needed to move whole populations and get things off the ground. Isn't that what we should all be concentrating on? On what can be done, instead of slagging off Toyota?

Perhaps some Bangladeshis could be persuaded to take Ripper in as a lodger, then he might start to question a few of his preconceptions.

The world will recover as it did in the last ice-age and all the climatic cycles that have been exhibited throught its life. I am not stating for one minute that human activity hasnt caused this to increase a large rate. What I am saying is we can still have the same quality of life by doing other things ie more renewable energy etc. Also a lot needs to looked at with free energy.

The point I was going on about is why should we change our life in Britain so drastically when it will be a drop in the ocean compaired to if others dont tow the line such as India, China and the USA.

The world will recover, but we will be dead.
I kind of agree if you're implying that wouldn't be a bad thing.

The whole thing about the global warming jamboree is that it fulfills lots of agendas.

Humans by nature seem to have a need for 'the end of the world is nigh' type pondering. Traditionally it was religion which would provide salvation. As societies become more secular we need something else to 'worship' which fills this void of guilt/despondency.

Because we can 'take steps' to reduce global warming (plant a tree, get rid of your car etc), it makes us all feel better about ourselves, and thus end the problem. This also satisfies the human need to feel that we have the power to change huge forces.

I believe that the only reason America and western European countries are starting to jump on the global warming bandwagon is so they can restrict the industrialisation (and therefore economic growth and power) of developing countries including China and India.

There has never been a public debate about global warming. The media coverage of all things environmental (in the UK at least) has been slowly creeping into the arena for a couple of decades, and has now reached the stage where the idea that carbon emissions contribute to climate change is a 'fact'.

Without wanting to sound like a Marxist conspiracy theorist, those controlling the media (the wealthy, the Goverment in the case of the BBC) can push the global warming message slowly and repetitively so that a kind of brainwashing occurs. It has occurred now. It has been a superb example of how an idea can be communicated in a way which changes the behaviour of millions of people.

Look back in history about 'facts' which have been established by the mass media - you will find plenty of examples from Nazi Germany, Facist Italy, and Communist Russia. A bit more recently and closer to home we had something called Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq which still haven't turned up yet.

It makes me wince when I hear what my nephew is being taught in school about the environment and how we are all horrible people for daring to drive cars and fly aeroplanes. And that advert where the dad reads his daughter the bedtime story about the end of the world makes we want to headbutt the telly into tiny pieces.

Very few people question the media, most will soak it all up like a sponge and believe every word. In fact there is bugger all in the way of real news any more - as someone pointed out on here recently, the Corus plant will leave over a thousand people jobless yet what is deemed more important to most newspapers is who England got in the World Cup. Makes a change from what's happening in reality TV shows I suppose.

And don't think I am someone who doesn't care about the environment - I recycle whatever I can, I grow my own vegetables, I don't drive a car that causes loads of pollution, I use public transport when I can, and I hate wasting resources of any description.

The problem I have is that anything which is foisted on me as 'fact' without reasoned debate I become very suspicious of. Humans might well be responsible for causing climate change, but I will never know because I am blinded by all the bullshit and hype.

Even Compo agrees that climate change is occurring, whatever caused it, and whoever is turning it to their financial advantage. The point is to do something about it.

You can hardly say that a conspiracy theory is in operation, brainwashing the people, when vast swathes of public opinion refuses to say there's a problem.

What would a public debate on global warming consist of?
It would be a sort of 'ask the audience' on Millionaire....if it's about soap and pop, the audience knows the answer. If not, it just guesses.

I agree with most of that, but I dont get the "global warming as brainwashing" bit at all! For decades I think there has been a left / liberal / green agenda of trying to push climate change up the media agenda, but only to get it to a level where those in a position of power may actually start to do something about it. At least they are now, arguably too little, too late and for utterly the wrong reasons, but at least they are.

We can all do our bit, to me thats just a good way to live yer life, but only when global action occurs will anything actually improve. I dont view it a governments ruling our lives as a lot on the right do, especially in the States; I see it as a sensible approach to a huge problem, a problem I wont live to see but my grandchildren definately will.

Or we can just say thats is all a hoax, life is good, buy a bigger car and laugh at all the enviroMentalists (geddit!) getting excited about feck all.

Do think its a tremendous offer of Mr R to put up all those Bangladeshees - what a gent!

I probably haven't explained meself properly - there's a good chance that the climate is changing, because it has been since earth was created by the big bang/god/allah/whoever.

But I find it hard to believe that it's because of human activity, simply because of the way the media has reported it. When opinions are forced down my neck I tend to disbelieve them.

What you are saying is clear enough to me.

Excellent.

If you dont believe that you are more naive than I thought, the governments try to pump us full of fear ie Climate change / Paedo's / the worlds banks collapsing / war etc they do this to maintain their own agenda creating a problem/reaction/solution effect that meets to their end game. Why is all this information on climate change geared towards cutting emittions of co2 when methane is much more destructive to the atmosphere, the reason being that cutting co2 emittions cause us to look at other resources such a renwable energy etc that in turn in turn line the pockets of people at the top of the tree ie the Bilderberg group and the Rothchilds.

You don't have to believe climate change is due to human activity, tho, PIN, to think that it's something we should be taking steps about. I agree that's what lots of people focus on.

Compo - I'm not for a minute stating that governments aren't directing the agenda in their and their paymasters general favour. I am saying that they have done feck all till they've had to and now they are doing it on their terms. The point I was making is that a lot of anti-climate change bods are using it as an excuse to say that governments are imposing on their day to day lives for the hell of it in some socialist conspiracy. They're not, they fecking around at the edges of it trying to put out a house-fire by pi$$ing on it. A house fire that if they had started acting on earlier would be controllable.

Actions that should be taken - massively reducing fuel usage, stop importing food from frigging Africa for Christ sake so Tabitha can have strawberries all year round, less consumption generally and far more respect for the planet we are on are all generally unpopular and dont win elections. Futhermore their paymaster will not like it at all, so they feck about at the edges.

As for methane, surely the same argument applies as it does to CO2? If we are forced to drop meat eating to reduce methane production - harsh as I really like me burgers - all that would happen is the Rothchilds and all would just make a fortune out of increased wheat production rather than renewables?

I know he is a bit of a fool but remembered an article clarkson wrote on this and found it on the sunday time web site, I just thought it was funny.

A couple of weeks ago Sir David Attenborough went on the BBC — an Establishment double act that’s hard to top — and explained exactly what global warming would mean for Britain.

In short, some householders in Worcester will need new carpets every time it rains, the Glasgow sewers will burst and a farmer in Abingdon will be moved to make way for a new reservoir. It was not even slightly terrifying, but nevertheless at the end Attenborough came onto the screen in big nose-hair close-up to explain that we must do something now — now, d’you hear — to prevent this catastrophe.

Doubtless a party political broadcast from such an authority as Attenborough will have had you scampering round the house turning off the lights. And maybe the next day you walked to work instead of taking the car. Though I doubt this, because much to the annoyance of the producers the next day was bitterly cold with snow falling in many parts of the country.

And anyway, even if every nation meets its obligations under the Kyoto agreement, the Earth won’t be saved. In fact, the heat expected in 2020 would arrive in 2026. So we ruin our lives to buy just six more years.

The fact is this. Global warming’s coming, so you can don your King Canute hat and stand on the beach waving your Toyota Prius at the advancing heatwave, but it won’t make a ha’p’orth of difference.

But don’t worry, because I have a plan. The biggest threat we face, according to the British Broadcasting Corporation, is rising sea levels. Apparently, seawater expands when it’s heated, so the entire population of Britain will have to spend the rest of time perched on top of Ben Nevis.

Plainly, then, there is too much water in the world, so why don’t we just call Nasa and ask it to take some of it into space? Technically this is not difficult. Build a fleet of space shuttles. Fill them with seawater. And move it into orbit.

If necessary the water could be stored in a huge balloon so that if the world cools down at some point in the future the shuttles could go up there and bring it back again.

Brilliant, yes? But having given the matter some thought, I think there is room for improvement.

Space is only 75 miles from the surface of the Earth, so why not make a giant hosepipe, dip one end in the sea and take the other end out into the void, where, of course, there is a vacuum. That means the water will be sucked up the pipe without the need for any energy-absorbing pumps.

Of course there is a small problem with this idea. Gravity means the hosepipe will keep falling back to the ground again, but I’ve thought of that.

Initially, I reckoned it could be tethered to the moon, but having studied astrological charts I’ve realised that in a day or two the pipe would be wrapped round the world. And as any gardener knows, this will cause a kink at some point, which will stop the water being ejected.

There are two ways of addressing this. We could either build a tower 75 miles tall to which the hosepipe could be fixed. Or we could fit the space end of the pipe with a watering can sprinkler attachment that is turned to face Earth. This would direct the water downwards and that would invoke Newton’s third law. Hey presto: the effects of gravity are overcome and the hosepipe stays up.

So when the Ice Age suddenly ended dramatically only ten thousand years ago and there was sea level rises on a gigantic scale, what caused that, it can't have been humans.
Fact is, the deniers and proclaimers are bedfellows as both their livings depend on it.
I wonder if there was a conference in Venice in the 1500's when the experts assured us the earth was flat and flat earth deniers could be burned at the stake, wasn't scientific opinion of the time overwhemingly of the opinion the earth was not round ....?
..and leeches were the answer to most health problems.

Is anyone so arrogant to think that we can tell the planet what to do and control it's actions??

How long has the planet been here and how long have we lived on it?? Compare the two and you will find that we are just another bacteria that exists.

Then some politicians and doubtfully qualified 'scientists' turn up and find a new way of taxing people.

Clue. The last ice-age happened before the last Industrial Revolution.

Clue 2: When did 'global warming' become 'climate change.'

Clue 3: We 'won' the war against Global terror' didn't we??

Are you all really so gullible?? Is there an iceberg in your living room?

Is there likely to be??

Really, move to a country that isn't so alarmist........

This whole thing is just a photo opportunity for politicians to snatch a chance to look 'caring'... as if any of them give a monkeys toss. Brown will be looking suitably pious as an election looms and is probably considering lowering the voting age to four so all the braimwashed kids can vote for Uncle Gordon so their pets don't drown, like they do on that scarey deniers T V advert.
The telly has been full of pious beardies and yoghurt knitters all day, telling us we can all save the world if we nail a wind turbine to our foreheads, pay zillions in tax to get energy from sprouts. live on lentils, drive around in modified milk floats and generally give up all that makes life worthwhile and go to discussion groups run by people who are a cross between political Jesuits and Guardianistas who'll want to us to make even more sacrifices to satisfy their masochistic lust to go backwards.
Nah.

That sir, was funny.

great but can someone answer my question please?

what is the carbon footprint of this?

do you not get the hypocricy, nay stupidity of it all.

the earth dies screaming.

Just a 'jolly' for the political bigwigs - could have all been done via an internet video conference at minimal cost with minimal carbon footprint. Hypocrisy at its most blatant.

A conference call for a load of politicians would be a cross between a washing machine on its spin cycle, white noise and a wasp in a cigar tube impersonating a DIY vibrator... unintelligible

...not for the wasp.

i should be in charge of this planet, i'd soon get it sorted

Are the environMentalists ((c)GighaPooly) just using a reiteration of Pascal’s Wager. Better to back the existence of God, the 17th century French mathematician and philosopher argued, because if you’re wrong it wouldn’t matter, for after death there’d be oblivion, while if you were right there would be a great reward. Being atheist on the other hand risks eternal damnation. The smart money’s on taking a chance on God. You can’t lose, it’s either oblivion or paradise. For the atheist, it’s either oblivion or lakes of fire in perpetuity.

Personally I will continue to be an atheist and what ever title is given to non believers of the new religion of global warming/climate change.

We had one woman on the box tonight who looked like a duvet in dungarees and an amazing similarity to a tramp in a haystack telling us how in future, life would be hell. From her own appearance, she had obviously travelled in time and came back as an example...
It's all about ... TAX. ..it's always about money.

I like this poem. It's the best thing on the thread.

I agree with everyone who thinks politicians are dicks without a hope in hell of saving the planet.
But I also think the final word (courtesy of George Monbiot in his Guardian article this morning) is this: 'the warming trend is closely correlated with the accumulation of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere. The impact of these gases can be demonstrated in a lab. To assert that they don't have the same effect in the atmosphere, a novel and radical theory would be required'

I think that means : if you don't agree, you need to refute the science, not just sneer at it.

We're never told the full story and never treated like adults by the politicians/media/vested interests.

That just gave me a flashback to last night!

Yes, but we're all agreed about that.
The science is there to be read, though, independently of intermediaries. There've been experiments and their results and methods have been written up.
What Monbiot's saying is that if you want to make a case, you've got to point to flaws in the science, not just give generalised opinions.

Nothing really to do with global warming but more of a green issue.

I switched my HSBC account to HSBC Green because they said they'd give me a free fiver and stop sending me letters and do everything through email. Seeing as I don't ever open my letters from them this seemed to make sense.

Yesterday I got a letter from them saying they were charging me 12p for interest charges.

Green issues aside, why would any company do this?

It's because they employ silly people. I've always wondered why I get turned down for jobs so often, and then come up against this sort of thing nearly every time I use a public company. Is it beacuse I look too sensible, I ask myself??

There is also lots of science to be read that its not infact increasing as much as others say. I am also curious to understand how a bloke to produce dramatic climate change in his lab as he quoted in the guardian yesterday. Any fool cant mimic co2 etc causing greenhouse effect in a closed environment but that the thing about the earth its not a closed environment.

Its like the creationist fools who quote the 2nd law of thermodynamics to disagree with evolution but leave out the major part in the law which reads the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time.

One problem is that climate change theory is just that its theory, its not science - its mathematical modelling over future decades. We are supposed to be reassured when the Met Office support the mathematical adjustments made at the University of East Anglia to the basic data and the broad conclusions of the modelling. This is the same Met Office that, with some of the largest and most powerful computers in the country, couldn't predict the October 1987 hurricane in the south east, or the Gloucestershire floods in 2007 or the Cockermouth floods a couple of weeks ago 24 hours in advance of the events. Yet we can have total confidence in their modelling of the global climate in 2050 to 2100. Most modellers of systems, be it climate, energy or financial markets or any other system know that models are only as good as the mathematical relationships in the model and the input asumptions used.

What really frustrates me over the debate is the answer to the perceived problem is to reduce our impact on the environment. So why do streams of scientist and journalists seem to spend their lives travelling to the arctic and antarctic to tell us that ice melts in the summer and freezes in the winter? Why are all these climate summits held at exotic locations - Rio, Kyoto, Bali etc - why not Dusseldorf, Chicago, Birmingham etc? Why are the 20,000 people, 1400 limos and 140 private jets at the talks at Copenhagen?

By all means take action to minmise our impacts on the planet - but the hysteria surrounding this issue simply turns ordinary people away from the issue. Religous fundamentalists are always dangerous - climate fundamentalists deserve the same wide berth.

I have been fortunate enough to work in the Antarctic for several years assisting the scientists involved in collecting data / monitoring trends.

Whilst I am not a scientist I have spent many an hour discussing quite a lot of the issues with them that have been raised by other posters here. The scientists for this particular organisation earn a pittance and they are the least politically motivated people I have met (for the record they will be conducting science there whatever they say due to the terms of territory claims in the Antarctic treaty). They are a strange breed in that they have an unbelievable dedication to their vocation and seek no fame or fortune -rather just to get to the truth. I accept that certain agencies / governments have agendas.

From my discussions with them climate change is definitely happening, all of the data supports that. Indeed having seen the rapid shrinking of a glacier at Palmer station on the peninsular with my own eyes over a 5 year period.

What I couldn't get an answer on was is it cyclical and how much effect are we having on it.

They know that emissions are not helpful - but can't defintely quantify it

The consensus was (which I agree with) if by minimising emissions we reduce the harmful effects on the planet / use our mineral resources more efficiently - then surely that is no bad thing. If at the same time it has a positive effect on climate change then great and as a responsible civilised race it is our duty to do the utmost to do what we can for future generations.

Unfortunately the press and governments get hold of these things and put their own spin on it
Part of it I can understand as we as a race of people will not change unless we have to and we will generally always pick the cheaper option - fossil fuels etc are the cheaper option at the moment and we will not spend a great deal of money on development of other sources until we have to.

If you are a cynic like me you will look at the viewpoints of say the UK and Saudi Arabia at Copenhagen

We cannot depend on our own mineral rescources anymore ergo we need to rely on other countries (and lovely adverts from the likes of exxon telling you what a wonderful friendly safe company they are - anybody else notice the advertising campaign in the last few months running up to copenhagen - LNG it's wonderful clean etc etc)

The Saudis / gulf states / russians have plenty of what we need - ergo they have the power and a great deal of clout

For us and the good old US of A to retain any clout in the world either we need to become less reliant on overseas fuel supplies or we get ourselves invloved in foreign conflicts in oil owning countries to get rid of the terrible "axis of evil"
These are expensive and those dammned fuzzy wuzzies just don't play cricket and use tactics such as terroism which just isn't on.

So.... in short what I am saying is that yes there is a problem with climate change and yes I think we should try and do something about it as there are additional advantages to it - but I do think there is an underlying game of powerbroking going on hence the hysteria of some western countries and the press.

I don't believe the science is there to be read. A theory is a proposition supported by the facts as they stand at any moment in time. Those facts or the interpretation of them can change at any time not least because of current political influence, paying the piper and the tune etc.

Changing tack a little bit though......there's a lot of grief generated by the depletion of the rain forests, lungs of the world etc. Prehistorically Britain was covered by forests, beech and oak in the south, ash further north and scots pine in the highlands. Forests are great at capturing carbon, they're actually made of the stuff. There are millions of acres of moorland owned by the great aristocratic estates devoted to very lucrative game shooting and which are grazed by sheep to control regeneration of forests. Nowhere have I heard that forests should be allowed to re-establish on moorland as a means of carbon capture. Just an example of how the world is taking action to deal with a crisis until it affects a vested interest.

Science in progress is a set of experiments. When someone has 'done' an experiment, s/he writes it up, says what the experiment sets out to investigate, says how the investigation took place, and what the results/conclusion were. Anyone can read the experiment write-ups. You don't have to wait for a hack or a politician to interpret them for you.

Other scientists then repeat the experiment and see whether they get the same, or different results. If scientists are likely to be biassed, eg, if they work for tobacco companies or pharmaceutical firms, then most people take that into account when looking at the results, but that doesn't mean objective science isn't possible.

Haven't you read kipper's post?

Yes I did read that and the bit that impressed me was when the scientist said they didn't really know. It's the ones who are certain I fear.

I know that the climate has changed cos it isn't like when I was a lad now. I'm suspicious that all the hype in the media at the moment isn't the full story. I haven't got access to all the research and if I did I haven't the time or the inclination to do a full and thorough examination of it to be able to draw conclusions.

What I'm convinced of though is there is more than meets the eye going on and it involves some power shift somewhere.

The other thing is..it isn't the planet thats at risk it's some percentage of the human race...arrogant really to assume that the latter equals the former. Darwin seems to have been a very wise chap.

I'm planting 8 trees next week I advise every one to do the same.

Well, I'm glad we're now in agreement....good luck with the trees.

Sounds like a good plan, I'm going to order 8 redwood trees to plant in my garden.

Please can you give me a list of these "experiements" as the majority of the ones I have seen are based on models and not lab based work. I said earlier that you can reporduce greenhouse effect in a closed environment but the point is the earth isnt a closed environment. We are expeceted to believe all this on theories of people when in fact they cannot produce dramatic climatic change and as I have said before dont see the fact of the matter that other areas of the planet that are now unhabitable will become habitable, look what happened to the Egyptians they left the desert because it got to hot and they couldnt live there anymore so got up sticks and moved elsewhere.