Copenhagen: a diary of findings
Published: 21 December 2009
Author: Catherine Archer
[ 11 ] Recommendations
[ 4 ] Comments
One of the numerous exhibits shown during the conference
After what seems like an eternity of reports and debates from the conference, Copenhagen (COP15) has finished.
Sideways News teamed up with Patrick Chalmers (formerly at Reuters and a reporter at Kyoto) and persuaded him to blog his way through the mayhem. Read Patrick's final update on his experience of Copenhagen and the issues involved with democracy and journalism, not to mention politics:
In conclusion (Monday 21st December): Copenhagen and the constraints of 'democracy' >>
Day 10 (Thursday 17th December): Reality of the Reclaim the Power protest >>
Day 9 (Wednesday 16th December): Yes, we have oil >>
Day 8 (Tuesday 15 December): Tasting journalism at Copenhagen (not forgetting the chip-oil fuel fiasco) >>
Day 7 (Monday 14th December): The climate negotiations stage is set >>
Day 6 (Sunday 13th December): 'BLA, BLA, BLA... ACTION NOW!' >>
Day 5 (Saturday 12th December): Caravane Solidaire loses out to the police >>
Day 4 (Friday 11th December): Dog nights and Kyoto vs. Copenhagen >>
Day 3 (Thursday 10th December): Distances in a low-carbon world >>
Day 2 (Wednesday 9th December): The route to Copenhagen: via chip-oil fuel and activists >>
Day 1 (Tuesday 8th December): One more climate dandy on his way to Copenhagen >>
SIDEWAYS News for fresh perspectives


Comments
Homogenic Global Warming? NOT! Greenhouse Gases = 95% Moisture Vapour. a mere 3.6% CO2,of which 3.3% is attributable to Mankind!. Are we really jumping up & down about the 0.12% in which we have the slightest effect? The planets are subject to the same regime of warmin/cooling - anyone seen any Little Green Men?
Robin - don't make assumptions. Read it and if you still don't like it, then stop. Simple. Peace.
Hi Robin
First of all, my apologies if my flippant tone offended you. I do not want to add to the invective already present in this highly charged issue.
There is no doubt that if you have a scientific background you will understand the science better than me, an engineering graduate of a long time back who has spent about 20 years mainly in journalism.
I have spent a lot of time during 15 years or so of climate journalism wrestling with hockey stick graphs, paleo versus physical temperature records and who knows what else? It does my head in, particularly when combined with journalistic concerns of balance and independence.
It's sort of incredible that what we have come down to with this issue, which you correctly identify as one that is likely to determine the way we live, is separating ourselves into camps of believers and skeptics/deniers/call it what you will. I don't personally like any of those terms.
While the theoretical science of climate modelling is spectacularly confusing to me, try as I might, the physical science - ice cover loss, species impacts, exceptional weather events and so on - is more compellling. I personally favour prudential action in the face of potentially catastrophic climate change, it really is a question of prudential use of natural resources versus steady as we go. There are plenty of potential solutions out there that don't involve spending billions on techno-fixes.
As for the Sidewaysnews name, please do not blame the publication for my column but me, the individual who takes full responsibility for what I have written.
You may see, if you care to read on through the week's entries, that there is plenty more to get your dander up. So please know in advance that my intention is not to offend. As for independence or objectivity, I can claim only to be a human being, no better nor worse than any other. The value I hope to strive for is integrity and personal honesty, measures that somehow seem more tangible.
If I thought your treatment of the subject would be balanced and"independent" I would follow it with enthusiasm.
However your comment in your editorial of Monday 7 December that we should "forget the rather silly climate change deniers" suggests you have a completely closed view of an issue likely to determine the way we live.
I have a scientific background and am VERY sceptical of the "science" and furthermore I strongly object to being called silly because I have taken the trouble to inform myself and arrive at what I consider to be a balanced opinion.
Might I suggest you should change the name of your newspaper.