Comments on: Climate Change, Carbon Emissions and Sustainable Energy http://s.pangonilo.com/index.php/2009/12/climate-change-carbon-emissions-and-sustainable-energy.html Professional Electrical Engineer Tue, 27 Dec 2011 09:32:56 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Klem http://s.pangonilo.com/index.php/2009/12/climate-change-carbon-emissions-and-sustainable-energy.html/comment-page-1#comment-654 Klem Fri, 04 Dec 2009 16:15:39 +0000 http://s.pangonilo.com/?p=999#comment-654 The poor nations who stand to earn billions in free money and technology will be the first to sign the treaty, the ones who will pay will be more reluctant. That's about all that will happen at Copenhagen. Also there are lots of statements to consider before signing this thing. For example in the treaty on page 6, it states “As assessed by the UN IPCC in its Fourth Assessment Report, warming of the climate system, as a consequence of human activity, is unequivocal.” This statement is false. The UN IPCC report makes no such conclusion. It concludes that warming as a consequence of human activity is "very Likely". The report does not use the word unequivocal, since it is based on science it can't use that word. What would the real purpose of this false statement be? I don't know but any politician who agrees with this statement would be risking his job. This will be an interesting meeting. Can't wait. The poor nations who stand to earn billions in free money and technology will be the first to sign the treaty, the ones who will pay will be more reluctant. That’s about all that will happen at Copenhagen.

Also there are lots of statements to consider before signing this thing. For example in the treaty on page 6, it states “As assessed by the UN IPCC in its Fourth Assessment Report, warming of the climate system, as a consequence of human activity, is unequivocal.” This statement is false. The UN IPCC report makes no such conclusion. It concludes that warming as a consequence of human activity is “very Likely”. The report does not use the word unequivocal, since it is based on science it can’t use that word. What would the real purpose of this false statement be? I don’t know but any politician who agrees with this statement would be risking his job.

This will be an interesting meeting. Can’t wait.

]]>