Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > sci.physics > #538996

Re: After Paris: Now what for world climate?

From jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Newsgroups sci.physics
Subject Re: After Paris: Now what for world climate?
Date 2015-12-14 03:34 +0000
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <fvp1kc-ke8.ln1@mail.specsol.com> (permalink)
References <9rCdnUnucdwHs_PLnZ2dnUU7-audnZ2d@giganews.com>

Show all headers | View raw


Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
> After Paris: Now what for world climate?
>> http://phys.org/news/2015-12-paris-world-climate.html
>> http://cdn.phys.org/newman/csz/news/800/2015/thefirststep.jpg
> 
>> 'It has to be affordable'

It can not be by any stretch of the imagination or it would already
be being done.

>> The United States, for example, wants pledges to be purely voluntary
>> to avoid being obliged to take the accord to a hostile Congress for
>> ratification.

Translation: no one in their right mind would be willing to pay for
this nonsense.

>> China, India and other developing nations, in turn, wanted to make
>> their commitments conditional on assurances of finance to the tune of
>> billions of dollars in the coming decades to help them switch from
>> cheap and abundant fossil fuels to costly renewable sources like
>> solar and wind.

Translation: send us money and we will provide you with eye wash.

>> Another part of the problem was fear of failure?negotiators were keen
>> to avoid a repeat of the 2009 UN climate conference in Copenhagen
>> which didn't even come close to sealing a global deal.

And didn't accomplish anything either.

>> Instead of a top-down approach of apportioning emissions targets, it
>> opened the way to a bottom-up approach: nations would set their own
>> emissions-cutting targets and timelines.

As in none.

>> The UN's climate science panel says greenhouse-gas emissions have to
>> drop 40-70 percent between 2010 and 2050, and to zero by 2100.

Pure stupidity.

-- 
Jim Pennino

Back to sci.physics | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

After Paris: Now what for world climate? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-13 20:51 -0600
  Re: After Paris: Now what for world climate? gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-12-13 21:25 -0600
  Re: After Paris: Now what for world climate? Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-13 22:40 -0500
    Re: After Paris: Now what for world climate? gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-12-13 23:04 -0600
    Re: After Paris: Now what for world climate? Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-14 07:49 -0500
      Re: After Paris: Now what for world climate? Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-12-14 13:55 +0100
        Re: After Paris: Now what for world climate? Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-14 08:26 -0500
          Re: After Paris: Now what for world climate? Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-12-14 15:19 +0100
            Re: After Paris: Now what for world climate? Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-14 22:14 -0500
  Re: After Paris: Now what for world climate? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-14 03:34 +0000

csiph-web