http://www.physorg.com/print178178343.html

In a provocative new study, a University of Utah scientist argues that rising carbon dioxide emissions - the major cause of global warming - cannot be stabilized unless the world's economy collapses or society builds the equivalent of one new nuclear power plant each day.
Energy conservation or efficiency doesn't really save energy, but instead spurs economic growth and accelerated energy consumption.
Well, duhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

All this garbage about battling global warming without accounting for global economic activity pisses me the hell off. Nobody seems to realize that if the first-world suddenly stopped using coal/oil then there would be skyrocketing demand in the third-world, and nothing would actually change. The real change will come from forcing levels and sources of consumption, but that won't happen until it's too late

Meanwhile, nobody predicted that the impregnable East Antarctic would be losing mass (yet it now is), every year sets some new record, worst-case scenario predictions in 1997 were more mild than the current most-likely scenario predictions, ALL trends of discovery point towards more and worsening positive feedback loops and severe underestimating of the problem on a yearly basis, etc etc

The Copenhagen garbage going on right now is a laughingstock. Fiddling with numbers and cherry picking data, thinking that hypothetical 10% reduction in a decade will mean anything when predictions are that without INSANE levels of change we'll be living worst-case scenario by 2100, and that new evidence is suggesting that even with complete and immediate curbing of emissions, we'll still see sub-worst case scenario due to lag effects.

They say the East Antarctic can't completely melt for another thousand years, but I guaranfuckingtee that by 2100 they'll be saying that it has about 100 more to go till it's all gone (or something of the like). 100 meters of sea-level rise by 2200 yaa hooo

I am just absolutely baffled at the complacency in the scientific community. I mean it makes no fucking sense that geophysicists can look at the data development over the last couple decades yet not infer that the exact same trends over that time aren't likely to continue when all signs point towards them continuing. We'll find that in 2020 our 2010 predictions were way too mild, and everybody's gonna act like they didn't see it coming, and I'll be sitting here with my thumb up my ass going hurr durr im a durr