More

UN Climate Talks Move Into Decisive Week As More Nations Pledge CO2 Reductions

ARTHUR MAX   12/ 6/10 05:44 PM ET   AP

Mexico Climate Conference

CANCUN, Mexico — U.N. climate talks moved into their decisive week Monday with the agenda dominated by future cuts in carbon emissions and keeping countries honest about their actions to control global warming.

Government ministers arrived in force to begin applying political muscle to negotiations that in the past week have narrowed some disputes, but which are likely to leave the toughest decisions for the final hours of the 193-nation conference on Friday.

Delegates were feeling pressure to produce at least a modest agreement from the two-week U.N. meeting to restore credibility to the talks after the last summit in Copenhagen failed to agree on any binding action to rein in emissions of global-warming gases.

"We cannot leave Cancun empty-handed," warned Connie Hedegaard, the European Union's top climate official.

The conference seeks decisions on establishing a "green fund" to help poorer nations rein in greenhouse gases and to adapt their economies and infrastructure to a changing climate; an agreement making it easier for developing nations to obtain patented green technology from advanced nations; and pinning down more elements of a system for compensating developing countries for protecting their forests.

"I can see a workable result that gets decisions across all the major areas. I can't predict whether we're going to get there," said U.S. special envoy Todd Stern.

New negotiating documents put on the table over the weekend were generally well received, despite criticisms of flaws and omissions.

"We have a basis to work from this week," said Hedegaard, adding that negotiators need to nail down ways to ensure that countries meet their emissions pledges. Actions by both industrial and developing countries must be monitored so that "they deliver on their promises," she said.

Falling short of a legal treaty at last year's summit, President Barack Obama brokered a political document with the leaders of China, India, Brazil and South Africa, called the Copenhagen Accord, which outlined important compromises.

One breakthrough came when China agreed to allow other countries to review climate actions that received international financing. At Cancun, the Chinese went a step further and said all their operations, including fully domestic actions, would be open to international scrutiny.

But details about how this would be done remained to be settled.

Stern listed some of the remaining issues: To whom do countries report their actions? What details need to be reported? Will a panel of experts review the data? Will countries be able to ask questions?

Xie Zhenhua, China's top climate official, said the critical issue was that measuring, reporting and verification respects national sovereignty and involves no punishment for missing obligations.

Adoption of the Copenhagen Accord was blocked by a handful of dissident nations, led by Bolivia and Venezuela. In subsequent months, however, 140 countries declared their endorsement of the deal, and 85 of them made specific pledges for reducing carbon emissions, or at least limiting their growth, by 2020.

Mexico's deputy foreign minister, Juan Manuel Gomez Robledo, said more countries intend to add their pledges to the list. And some that already have submitted pledges may take "additional measures," he said. He declined to name any country, but said they included both industrial and developing nations.

"There has been a clear message from some parties, and that would certainly be very good news," he told reporters.

The pledges in the Copenhagen Accord are purely voluntary, and are insufficient to meet the goal scientists have set to limit the average global temperature to 2 degrees Celsius (3.8 Fahrenheit) above what it was before the industrial age began.

The most troublesome issue – and one that could still undermine even the limited ambition envisioned for Cancun – was whether industrial countries would agree to further emissions cuts as spelled out in the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.

Under Kyoto, 37 nations and the European Union agreed to cut greenhouse gases by a total of 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. Those countries are on target to meet their obligations, but some of them have balked about accepting more mandatory cuts after 2012.

Japan caused an uproar last week when it flatly said it will refuse to go along, as long as all major emitting countries do not have similar obligations. The United States was assigned a reduction target, but it rejected the treaty. Developing countries, including China and India, were excluded from Kyoto's strictures.

India's environment minister Jairam Ramesh said developing countries had three non-negotiable demands: that developing countries agree to post-2012 reduction targets, that emergency funds begin flowing to Africa and the poorest states facing potential climate disasters, and that Western technology quickly be extended to help countries adapt to climate changes.

Christiana Figueres, the U.N.'s top climate official, said backstage efforts were under way to finesse the Kyoto issue. "There is already an active search for that medium ground," she said.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

CANCUN, Mexico — U.N. climate talks moved into their decisive week Monday with the agenda dominated by future cuts in carbon emissions and keeping countries honest about their actions to control...
CANCUN, Mexico — U.N. climate talks moved into their decisive week Monday with the agenda dominated by future cuts in carbon emissions and keeping countries honest about their actions to control...
Filed by Travis Donovan  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 125
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:19 PM on 12/11/2010
The #1 global reinsurer, Munich Re, stands to lose more than anybody on Earth if their analysis of the probabilit­ies is wrong. Of course, considering that they earn tens of billions of dollars in profit by correctly calculating a plethora of probabilities too precisely for serious competition to arise, smart money does not bet that Munich Re is wrong.

http://www­.property-­casualty.c­om/News/20­10/12/Page­s/Munich-R­e-Initiate­s-Climate-­Change-Deb­ate-As-Glo­bal-Summit­-Begins.as­px

NU Online News Service, Dec. 1, 12:19 p.m. EST
Aggregate losses from weather-re­lated natural catastroph­es since 1980 now total $1.6 trillion and insured losses are increasing an average of 11 percent per year, Munich Re said in a press report.

As of the end of September, 2010 is gearing up to be the warmest year since records began 130 years ago, according to the report, “Weather Extremes, Climate Change, Cancun 2010,” released as the 16th World Climate Summit gets underway in Cancun, Mexico.

Munich Re said in its report that climate change is a fact and is almost entirely made by man. Munich Re said it has been analyzing natural hazards and natural hazard losses for more than 35 years, and has set up a comprehens­ive natural catastroph­e database—c­urrently comprising more than 28,000 events.

According to Munich Re, the number of major weather-re­lated natural catastroph­es has tripled since 1980, as has the number of floods. Windstorms have more than doubled in number as well, Munich Re said.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:22 PM on 12/11/2010
At the December Climate Summit in Cancun, Mexico, Munich Re said, expectatio­ns are low that an agreement will be reached on mitigation of carbon. To do this, the United States and China would have to change their stance—whi­ch the company said is unlikely.

With climate change in mind, Munich Re said it has devised a number of covers to reduce the risks for investors in renewable energies, thus making such investments feasible.

Munich Re said the spectrum ranges from traditional coverage for industrial facilities to complex solutions, such as coverage against a lack of wind or sunshine and performance guarantee covers for manufacturers in the technology sector that reduce the risks for investors.

The most recent example is a performance guarantee cover concluded in October for concentrator photovoltaic modules produced by U.S. manufacturer SolFocus, the company said.

Munich Re also cited Desertec, a project using solar energy or wind power that will initially focus on the Middle East/North Africa region, using the vast expanses of desert there. Electricity is to be transmitted over long distances using extremely low-loss high-voltage direct current technology (HVDC).

Munich Re said it expects its premium income from these coverages to increase substantially by 2020.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard2
11:19 PM on 12/12/2010
Perhaps the new Republican Congress can demand the Munich Re testify about their role in setting the hurricane insurance rates for home owners in Florida. Then, the quality and credibility of Muncich Re's research and analysis can be fairly debated and judged by the citizens of Florida.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard2
11:08 PM on 12/12/2010
Roger Pielke Jr. has written several articles about the global warming bias in the research done by Munich Re. They owe the people of Florida a refund.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:22 AM on 12/13/2010
Really! I wasn't aware that Munich Re was doing such commendable work that it had prompted lukewarmer / delayer Roger Pielke, Jr to talk trash about them. Thank you for the tip.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:41 PM on 12/13/2010
I find him mainly petulant about being snubbed for his betters. Critiquing the 2001 Third Assessment Report in 2009, two years after the Fourth Assessment Report had been released, is cherry-picking through all IPCC publications for something to whine about. He's not trying to make the science better, he's trying to make the science *look* bad. It probably works on a lot of amateurs and true disbelievers like yourself, but to every honest person in the know, you and he only make yourselves look bad.
photo
Publicola
Facts are stubborn things
11:08 AM on 12/11/2010
LetsGoSteve: "...to catch up to the hysterians­."

In your mind is Dr. Stephen Hawking a "hysterian", Steve?

----------­----------­----------­--------

"The danger is that global warming may become self-susta­­­ining, if it has not done so already. The melting of the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps reduces the fraction of solar energy reflected back into space, and so increases the temperatur­­­e further. Climate change may kill off the Amazon and other rain forests, and so eliminate once one of the main ways in which carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere­­­.

"The rise in sea temperatur­­­e may trigger the release of large quantities of carbon dioxide, trapped as hydrides on the ocean floor. Both these phenomena would increase the greenhouse effect, and so global warming further. We have to reverse global warming urgently, if we still can."

-- Dr. Stephen Hawking
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:29 PM on 12/11/2010
It's not hysterical to care about one's progeny. The difference between Stephen Hawking and Steve McIntyre, or between myself and LetsGoSteve, is that simple: care for our progeny. I'm a steward, LetsGoSteve is a parasite. That is all there is to it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LetsGoSteve
08:38 PM on 12/10/2010
I do believe in the theory of Pavlov's dog. Follow what is being rewarded and you will get to the truth. Supporting global warming is rewarded with additional grants to build a stronger case. Scientists who do not subscribe to global warming are left on the outside looking in at the money trough.
photo
Publicola
Facts are stubborn things
03:12 AM on 12/11/2010
LetsGoSteve: "I do believe in the theory of Pavlov's dog."

You also believe in creationism.

LetsGoSteve: "Scientists who do not subscribe to global warming are left on the outside looking in at the money trough. "

Do you believe that's why there are so view scientist "researching" creationism too?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:46 AM on 12/11/2010
Fact 1: The easy money is in climate change denial.
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/
Billionaire oilman David Koch likes to joke that Koch Industries is "the biggest company you've never heard of." But the nearly $50 million that David Koch and his brother Charles have quietly funneled to climate-denial front groups that are working to delay policies and regulations aimed at stopping global warming is no joking matter.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Patrick_J._Michaels
Patrick J. Michaels (±1942- ), also known as Pat Michaels, is a global warming skeptic ...
Michaels' firm does not disclose who its clients are, but leaked documents have revealed that several were power utilities which operate coal power stations. On a 2007 academic CV, Michaels disclosed that prior to creating his firm he had received funding from the Edison Electric Institute and the Western Fuels Association. He has also been a frequent speaker with leading coal and energy companies as well as coal and other industry lobby groups.[3]

Fact 2: 97% of everybody who works for a living actively publishing climate science agree with the IPCC.
http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

Fact 3: There is no "theory of Pavlov's dog." The scientific theory is called the theory of conditioned response. "Pavlov's Dog" is an expression for people reacting without thinking, which contradicts LetsGoSteve's long-standing assertion of a VOLITIONAL conspiracy within climate science.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LetsGoSteve
07:30 AM on 12/11/2010
http://pdf.wri.org/climate_finance_pledges_2010-02-18.pdf

According to World Resources Institute, the deniers got a lot of spending to do to catch up to the hysterians.

Thanks for the correction on properly referencing the theory of conditioned response. However, I will continue to reference it as the theory of Pavlov's dog for the benefit of those who have not had the educational brain washing experience like yours.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LetsGoSteve
08:30 AM on 12/11/2010
ObjectiveRealist - Look at the URL's of your sources, no agendas there. Let's see Greenpeace claims that Koch industries have funneled $50 million to climate-denial front groups.

Thanks for the heads up. I will let my friends over at MN4GW a heads up. Perhaps they will be able to move on up out of the RV.

sourcewatch - is all worked up about how a single scientist is getting funded.
So let's see you have come up with unsubstantiated 50 million plus the funding of a single scientist.

I have linked you to a document from the World Resource Institute that the Global Community is spending around 8 billion per year on global warming. I printed this document out before it gets scrubbed from the internet.

http://pdf.wri.org/climate_finance_pledges_2010-02-18.pdf

The evidence is telling us that you look past the reality to get to your objective.

You looked past the 8 billion, in order to focus on the 50 million, that is not even supported with any documentation.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:53 AM on 12/10/2010
The Pentagon: Global warming/cl­­imate change Is real and a destabiliz­­ing force.

From the Pentagon's Quadrennia­­l Defense Review (Feb. 2010):

-------

“Climate-r­­elated changes are already being observed in every region of the world, including the United States and its coastal waters. Among these physical changes are increases in heavy downpours, rising temperatur­­e and sea level, rapidly retreating glaciers, thawing permafrost­­, lengthenin­­g growing seasons, lengthenin­­g ice-free seasons in the oceans and on lakes and rivers, earlier snowmelt, and alteration­­s in river flows.

Assessment­­s conducted by the intelligen­­ce community indicate that climate change could have significan­­t geopolitic­­al impacts around the world, contributi­­ng to poverty, environmen­­tal degradatio­­n, and the further weakening of fragile government­­s. Climate change will contribute to food and water scarcity, will increase the spread of disease, and may spur or exacerbate mass migration.

While climate change alone does not cause conflict, it may act as an accelerant of instabilit­­y or conflict, placing a burden to respond on civilian institutio­­ns and militaries around the world. In addition, extreme weather events may lead to increased demands for defense support to civil authoritie­­s for humanitari­­an assistance or disaster response both within the United States and overseas.”

http://www­­.defense.­g­ov/qdr/i­ma­ges/QDR­_as­_of_12­Feb1­0_100­0.pdf
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LetsGoSteve
01:57 PM on 12/11/2010
Hmmm?

I attempted to find the http://www­­­.defense­.­g­ov/qdr­/i­ma­ges/­QDR­_as­_o­f_12­Feb1­­0_100­0.pd­f and it is not to be found.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:12 PM on 12/11/2010
I agree. The URL is improperly formatted.
http://www.defense.gov/qdr/qdr%2520as%2520of%252029jan10%25201600.pdf
Apparently the Defense Department's IT staff is as stretched thin as the soldiers because that's crappy, but it will get the document.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
fumes
Pass The Pakalolo
11:24 PM on 12/09/2010
Greenland's Ice Has Secret Weapon Against Melting
09 December 2010 by Michael Marshall
Journal reference: Nature, DOI: 10.1038/nature09618
Greenland's ice sheets are shrinking already as the climate warms, and some glaciologists fear that they could accelerate their own destruction. If they all melted, they would raise global sea levels by 6.5 metres – though even in a world 8 °C warmer than now this might take 1000 years.

The feared self-destruct device is water. As a glacier melts, water runs down to its base. In theory, this lubrication should accelerate the glacier's slide downhill and melt it sooner.

But this positive feedback is "limited", says Christian Schoof of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, who has built a new model of glaciers that simulates how they respond to meltwater. He says glaciers can get rid of excess water because of the way their internal structure changes.

Schoof's model could help explain what is happening to Greenland's glaciers, says glaciologist Roderik van de Wal of Utrecht University in the Netherlands, who has found no sign of the feared feedback effect. "The melt has been increasing but glacier velocities have not," he says.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19842-greenlands-ice-has-secret-weapon-against-melting.html
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LetsGoSteve
08:39 PM on 12/10/2010
And all of this just banged and then evolved into what we are today.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:02 PM on 12/11/2010
Or perhaps, as leading modern physicists surmise, it had something to do with entropy and the potential energy of the Higgs field 13.7 Billion ya. I would say "your guess is almost as good as mine" but mine is based on the best research available and yours is based on a Bronze Age superstition derived from human sacrifice rituals that predate Judaism by thousands of years. But I suppose that in your opinion, learning the true origins of your own belief system would also constitute "brainwashing" because it would logically require you to self-critically examine the clutter in your head and replace all the fallacies with facts.
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
12:41 PM on 12/11/2010
I always thought of it as the Big Splash Theory. You know, like tossing a stone into a pond. In our case something really big and exciting splashed into our lower three dimensions from above. Whadya think Steve?
photo
Publicola
Facts are stubborn things
04:49 AM on 12/11/2010
"Greenland­'­s ice sheets are shrinking already as the climate warms"

Indeed.

More on that here:

----------­----------­----------­-------

GEOPHYSICA­L RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 36, 2009

Increasing rates of ice mass loss from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets revealed by GRACE

We use monthly measuremen­ts of time-varia­ble gravity from the GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment­) satellite gravity mission to determine the ice mass-loss for the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets during the period between April 2002 and February 2009. We find that during this time period the mass loss of the ice sheets is not a constant, but accelerati­ng with time, i.e., that the GRACE observatio­ns are better represente­d by a quadratic trend than by a linear one, implying that the ice sheets contributi­on to sea level becomes larger with time. In Greenland, the mass loss increased from 137 Gt/yr in 2002–2003 to 286 Gt/yr in 2007–2009, i.e., an accelerati­on of −30 ± 11 Gt/yr2 in 2002–2009. In Antarctica the mass loss increased from 104 Gt/yr in 2002–2006 to 246 Gt/yr in 2006–2009, i.e., an accelerati­on of −26 ± 14 Gt/yr2 in 2002–2009. The observed accelerati­on in ice sheet mass loss helps reconcile GRACE ice mass estimates obtained for different time periods.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040222.shtml
06:05 AM on 12/09/2010
What a funny picture of Pachauri. The priest of global warming at mass.
05:38 PM on 12/09/2010
SoCal's another shill, but too crummy at it to get paid for it.

Evidence? 97 of her first 100 posts were denials of global warming. Indeed, her very first posts says, "I'm new to this whole thing", but her next post says, pseudo-innocently, "Are these any good?" referring to five global warming denial books on Amazon. And she's been at it, monomaniacally, lying incessantly ever since.

Here's the link, see for yourself.
http://www­­­.huffing­t­o­npost.­co­m/­soci­al/­SoC­al­HotO­ne?a­­ction­=com­m­ents­&di­spl­ay=­al­l&sor­t=­o­ldest

Does that sound like some naive innocent "new to this whole thing", or more like somebody sent to HuffPo specifically to shill for the fossil fuel industry?

We report; you decide.
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
12:38 PM on 12/10/2010
She is a prevaricator. Even after the truth is explained to her by actual scientists, she invariably comes back with the exact fabrications. No one could be that stupid. No, in her case it is dishonesty.
08:20 PM on 12/10/2010
I showed you the temperature records for the town where you live and the cities around it. What is obvious to anyone that looks at the data, is that your supposed global warming simply has not occurred there. Yet you insist that it has.

So who is more honest?
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
08:59 PM on 12/10/2010
SoCalHotOne has been shown, repeatedly, by real scientists here on HP, that she is misrepresenting the data. Not getting any agreement the first 30 or so times that she presented her data, here she tries for the 31st or so time, hoping that this time the answer will be different.
12:54 PM on 12/08/2010
The above guy is never worth paying any attention to, except for the following issue:

Richard2 - erstwhile fossil fuel SHILL

Here's the latest on Richard2, not from Cancun. 1949 posts since Feb. 18th, 2009. How many of them deny global warming a/o its impacts? Just about all, starting from day 1. 126 straight denier posts before he posted on anything else. Can anybody find even 5 not on his sole pet topic?

Why the monomaniacal obsession, Richard2? Have any special science expertise in that area? No? What about climate policy? NO on that score too? So, you really don't know anything worth reporting, eh?

Then what's this all about? Why did you come to HuffPo, if not solely to SHILL for the fossil fuel industry?
Really, who sent you?

And if you're not a paid shill, then what's up with your continual refusal to provide a simple, UNEQUIVOCAL yes or no response to the following, ridiculously easy question,

"Are you now or have you ever been paid to deny global warming and/or any of its impacts?"

We've been asking that question of you for several months now, and all you do is give sly, cagey, finessed, legalistic responses that look engineered to leave you with what we call "plausible deniability".

spot on like a PAID SHILL, in the same class as Overtone and his phony fractional hydrogen scam.

All in all, this guy has nothing worthwhile to contribute here.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard2
12:09 PM on 12/08/2010
"THE great global warming scare is dying not with a bang, or even a whimper. Try a great horse laugh.

Right now, 20,000 activists, politicians and carpetbaggers are meeting in the Mexican resort city of Cancun.

They are there for the latest United Nations conference on how to make everyone else cut the emissions caused by, for instance, flying a population the size of a small city to a Mexican beach.

These are the emissions we’re told are heating the world so dangerously that Europe is now gripped by one of the coldest winters of a generation.

Indeed, it’s so bad that Vicky Pope, a warming pundit from Britain’s Met Office, was trapped in London by the snow that the Met’s climate models failed to predict, and so couldn’t fly to Cancun to explain how very hot the world in fact was.

This kind of thing dogged the UN’s climate mega-summit in Copenhagen a year ago. The heavens dumped 10cm of snow on the city in one night, while blizzards threatened to shut airports in Washington, forcing US Speaker Nancy Pelosi to fly home early while she could.
.....

Never mind. Fresh off their jets, and cooled by the tropical resort’s airconditioners, the Cancun evangelists are learning of cheery plans to put the rest of us on rations to restrict our use of such things as planes and coolers, and salsa bands flown in from Acapulco." -Andrew Bolt
photo
Publicola
Facts are stubborn things
05:33 PM on 12/08/2010
Oh look -- R2 has robo-copy-n-pasted from yet another non-scientist science-denier OpEd writer.

What a surprise.
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
12:34 AM on 12/09/2010
You erect straw men, all in a line. Easy to argue against straw men R2. Your arguments are completely specious and false, as they have been for hundreds of your previous posts. Pub is right about you, superb cut and paste skills.

R2, denier of reality, troller of forums, master of cut and paste.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard2
06:58 PM on 12/09/2010
Meteorologist Joe Bastardi:


"8 Dec 10 - "The central England Temperature (CET) from the 1st-7th of December is -1.9, making this the coldest opening week of December since 1879," says meteorologist Joe Bastrardi.

With 1879 being the coldest opening week on CET record, this week has been the second coldest opening week to December since CET records began in 1659.

Those records are for a one-week period.

When you look at the two-week period, says Bastardi, the last week of November and the first week of December, it's the coldest since CET records began in 1659.

This puts central England back to the temperatures of the Little Ice Age.
And there's more to come, Bastardi warns.

"Preparation for renewal of extreme cold from France to Scandinavia and west through the UK should be made." "
photo
Publicola
Facts are stubborn things
10:38 AM on 12/11/2010
Q: Why can't science deniers understand the difference between climate and weather?

A: Because they are science deniers, of course
10:34 AM on 12/08/2010
In Cancun yesterday afternoon, UNFCCC Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres said that countries must, in a spirit of conciliation, “offer to compromise first,” if progress is to be made. The U.N. Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon, followed suit asking countries to show “courage, common sense and compromise." Negotiating governments have this choice, 500 million smallholder farms in developing countries don’t have a choice. Farmers in developing countries are using courage and common sense to produce what they can on some of the most climatically vulnerable and marginal land on our planet. And they are managing to feed one-third of humanity. Climate change will force them to make compromises: many will need to compromise their children’s education for farm labor, compromise the quality of their land and soil to squeeze a few more bushels of maize out of a hillside plot, or compromise the long term productivity of their pastureland to keep a precious cow or goat alive through a drought. At the very least, Cancun must result in increased adaptation funding that will benefit the rural poor and smallholder farmers in developing countries to continue feeding themselves and a global population projected to be more than 9 billion by 2050. If a new Fund for long term financing is agreed upon here in Cancun, its first order of business should be to ensure that the rural poor receive the support they need.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:56 AM on 12/08/2010
In the US it's like Cancun didn't even happen. No US media agency has provided any coverage on the event at all, the best coverage I've seen is a few spotty articles on the BBC.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
tercio
Say NO to War.
12:12 PM on 12/08/2010
Mass Media won't inform of anything than hasn't been spoon fed to them.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
worker beenumbed
08:05 PM on 12/07/2010
The USA needs to tax merchant ships that enter USA ports one time a quarter.Base the tax on the displacement tonnage of the ship only..Collect it every quarter.Use some of the money to add to the per watt revenue of carbon free power in the USA.Use the rest to extend the payroll tax holiday.Stop the bickering...Some for developing nations.
03:40 PM on 12/07/2010
• NASA
http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

“Most scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect"

• NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/L ibrary/ocp2009/ocp2009-ccsp.htm

“... most of the global warming experienced in the past few decades is very likely due to the observed increase in greenhouse gas concentrations from human activities.”

• AGU (American Geophysica l Union) http://www.agu.org/outreach/science_policy/positio ns/climate _change2008.shtml

“The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system ... are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century.”

• AMS (American Meteorolog ical Society)
http://ametsoc.org/policy/2007climatechange.html

“…there is adequate evidence from observations and interpretations of climate simulations to conclude that the atmosphere , ocean, and land surface are warming; that humans have significantly contributed to this change; and that further climate change will continue to have important impacts on human societies, on economies, on ecosystems , and on wildlife through the 21st century and beyond.”
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
edisnuts
03:33 PM on 12/07/2010
wouldn't it have been more prudent to have the UN globalphobia crowd just assemble in a meeting room in those big buildings in New York?'....Seems most of them are there already and the countries already have living accommodations,,,,
photo
John Mainstream
I'm a Clinton Democrat that is now an independent.
11:33 AM on 12/07/2010
Clearly, this whole UN climate control fad is over.
photo
Publicola
Facts are stubborn things
01:18 PM on 12/07/2010
Clearly, there are people who are taken in by science denier disinformation.
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
12:36 AM on 12/09/2010
Only clear to the followers of Biggus Beckus.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
truthfulman
03:43 AM on 12/07/2010
I guess the fact there's been no statistically significant warming of the planet over the last 15 years sort of throws a wet blanket on the whole "global warming" thing.
photo
Publicola
Facts are stubborn things
01:15 PM on 12/07/2010
I guess the fact that your "fact" here is false sort of throws a wet blanket on the whole "truthfulman" thing.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LetsGoSteve
08:36 PM on 12/10/2010
Speaking of wet blankets. It seems to be a trend. Whenever these global warming conferences occur, the earth experiences some unseasonable cold weather. As a person who believes in an intelligent designer I think he/she is sending us a message.
photo
Publicola
Facts are stubborn things
01:13 PM on 12/07/2010
Good 'ol conservative OpEd columnist and non-scientist Christopher Booker - a favorite source for "science" information by science deniers everywhere, including evolution science deniers. Why? Because in addition to being a climate science denier Booker is also an evolution science denier:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/4550448/Charles-Darwin-zealots-have-made-science-a-substitute-religion.html

Hey SoCalWarmer,

Do you, like Booker, deny evolution science too? And if not, why do you take Booker seriously as a reliable source for other science-related information?
11:05 PM on 12/07/2010
"...why do you take Booker seriously as a reliable source for other science-re­lated informatio­n?"

Because he is correct on this issue. The article, and the issue at hand, is not evolution. It is the joke of man-made global warming.
photo
Publicola
Facts are stubborn things
03:48 AM on 12/08/2010
Hey SoCalWarme­r,

Do you, like Booker, deny evolution science too?

Please answer the question; thanks.