Shared publicly  - 
Welcome to Jose Maria Figueres, new President of the Carbon War Room. We look forward to working with him in the fight against carbon...
Welcome to Jose Maria Figueres, the new President of the Carbon War Room...
Robert Infi's profile photoDerek Burdsall's profile photojean-christian Guinet (chills or fear33)'s profile photoandres navarro's profile photo
Wars against THIS.... Wars against THAT.... They never seem to do what they started out to do and ALWAYS COST ME LOTS OF MONEY!!! Just look at the WAR ON DRUGS and where has that gotten us ??? What is a "Carbon War Room" anyway ????
Further adding to the Big Lie about climate change. The idea that the Poor should remain so and not travel at all while the rich jet around spouting on about doing your bit.
Sorry, but the name is really BS - and I'm not talking about the word war in it.

You are not fighting a war agains carbon, becaus that would mean you are fighting a war against your own body. Carbon is second place of ELEMENTS used in your body.

What you may be fighting is a war against SOME carbon COMPOUNDS, mainly carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide.

But I guess the more accurate name Some Carbon Compunds War Room is not catchy enough ;)
@William Grace, I don't agree with you on the issue about the Big Lie, but the other remark is dead on (that doesn't contradict each other)
+Robert Infi I think it's understood to mean a war against carbon emissions. I'm not sure why you would object to this being shortened to carbon, it's done all the time such as when one talks about a carbon tax.
Well if man's causing global warming why are the other planets in the solar system heating up also. The sun is where you have to look and I can't see altering that. It's just another way to get money out of you folks and they know it. Don't get me wrong I'm all for limiting Carbon emissions and believe we should do it. But making another money spinning operation on the side I don't agree with.
+Barry Metse You think the entire international scientific community is engaged in a conspiracy to lie about the science in order to allow governments possibly propose a solution that involves a new tax ?
Entire international Scientific community????? Do some research instead of blindly believing. I didn't say I didn't want emissions cut, read the post. Why can't governments legislate the corporations causing the problems? Have a look into it is all I'm saying, if you can tell me where you get your evidence from, I'm open to listening.
+Barry Metse I did do some research. You are the one that said it's something that was made up in order to get our money. Consequently you are the one that would need provide evidence to back that up.
+Barry Metse Here's a citation from the wikipedia article on the subject :

The main conclusions of the IPCC on global warming were the following:
The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 °C per decade in the last 30 years.[6]
"*There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities*", in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.[7]
If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue, with temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100. Accompanying this temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise.[8] On balance the impacts of global warming will be significantly negative, especially for larger values of warming.[9]

No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion
I don't mean to be mean but often times the common man weighs in on matters of science when he is in no position to fully understand them especially considering most people borrow or co-opt their ideas from media sources with an agenda or simply repeat simplified slogans. It is quite frustrating to me to see everyone opining on global carbon emissions and global warming when quite frankly if they were intellectually honest with themselves they really don't have any idea what they are talking about and a simple math or science quiz would prove to them they are grossly inadequate in evaluating the information. Not to say the voice of the people should not be considered but in some areas it is foolish to work to inform them or change their behavior. I don't see us publicly debating the merits of various heart surgery techniques which may or may not have broad public health impacts, or debating which types of metals to use in particle accelerators or super conductor technologies. Could you imagine two people having these same debates about a heart valve: Joe says "the R223 valve is going to save lives" and Bob replies "no the R223 valve doesn't exist it is a medical fiction, besides which I heard the makers of the valve are actually heartless." Joe "no their not they love sick patients" Bob "their valves are making people sick."
I never said it was something that was made up at all, read the words. I don't have to engage in this at all. You provided nothing that is against what I said if you actually bother to read. I said I was all for reduction in greenhouse gases, my gripe was how they plan to do it. I also stand by my statement that all the planets are warming and there's no greenhouse activities on them. As for Jason's comment, something that effects the whole planet should be discussed by people, forums are where you find things out or where to find things out. If you don't agree don't bother reading, just move on. Basically Euro your preaching to the converted which isn't of much use. There are more factors involved in this and carbon credits etc have already been abused by the financial system in the European union with vast sums of money made by $2 companies who disappear before they are found. This is the side of the carbon debate I was talking about.
+Barry Metse Your very first sentenced questioned whether man was responsible for the global warming. When I said that was the consensus of the scientific community. You questioned that as well and said I need to do more research. If you want to question whether carbon taxes is the best way to do it or not, that's fine. But don't try to argue that it's faulty science which is precisely what you did, not in one comment but in two.
Your entitled to think that. I do question "it's the consensus of the scientific community". Scientists might agree the globe is warming, I also do. The causes of it is something different. As I stated there's more to it than just greenhouse gasses. I'm leaving it there.
+Barry Meste You are not reading what I've posted. The consensus of the scientific community is that the humans are contributing to global warming. I've provided the specific citations from the IPPC and the statement that no scientific body of national standing or international standing has offered a dissenting opinion. You are entitled to think and question what you want but you are simply misstating the facts.
Britain produces only 3% of the world's carbon emissions so our involvement in global warming etc is negligible.
Does anyone know of any documented researching/results showing what the CWR has accomplished?
+Paul Kundu So if Britain is about 1 % of the world's population, that means Britain is three times more responsible than the average.
"The consensus of the scientific community is that the humans are contributing to global warming". That's like saying plants are contributing to oxygen creation. True, but has nothing to do with the argument at hand. Also, humans have no idea about global warming on a long-term scale, 30 years ago we were predicting another ice age coming. Any research done over ~50 years is simply not long enough when you consider the age of the Earth.
+Douglas Mines That most of the warming over the last 50 years is attributable is to human activities may be self evident to you but it has only been the consensus of the scientific community relatively recently.
To the Carbon War Room I would hope you have considered the logical process of interconnecting the electricity grid first and then tapping in to all the renewable options that will suddenly appear simply because the costs for transmission would be negated. Please see for more.
Why wasn't this carbon problem bought to light back in my younger days when ships crossed the ocean and trains criss-crossed the continents belching soot from coal fired engines into the atmosphere?
you must learn to crawl before you can walk my friend
Aaaah, so you agree it's a viable path, but it's just 'too big'.

As far as I am concerned, it is only the protective governments whom can't 'walk' yet. I think there are about 30 ctrys already interconnected and the only reason there aren't more is because it's 'too hard' for them to talk to other governments about interdependence.
Just imagine these 3;
America => Canada => Russia/Europe
Africa => Spain/Europe
Australia => Indonesia => China/Europe
From a concept point of view only, this would imply a world grid and that brings heaps of advantages all of which are made clear on
+Jason Jones I would agree with you if governments were not taxing me to 'help' with to CO2 reduction. If heart surgeons decided to tax ALL the population to do something about heart attacks then I would be ensuring that their opinions were based on robust and proveable science.

Science is not science if it cannot be proved, it is faith.....
Exactly right, We all need to promote innovation and make sure business can grow as fast as possible. Governments must stop getting in the way of that. Imagine if cold fusion hit the markets,
or Graphene was taken up. The only task the Governments (and the Law), would need to be involved in is protection for the innovators/inventors from the big and powerful oil/gas etc interests which unfortunately (and ironically), includes the governments.
That's why they're still 'crawling'.
Carbon War Room ... you guys are a total scream!
@Cyril Rice: simple answer, people where even more thoughtless/careless then that they are now - you could substitute thoughtless/careless with stupid/ignorant etc. if you like ;)
Poor humans. They can't see the forest for the trees. Or maybe it's because of how many fewer trees there are now than 50 years ago.

There is no such thing as a free lunch. Population growth and deforestation have taken a huge toll on this planet in our lifetimes.
The people who argue otherwise do so not out of a desire for truth, rather a desire to keep their wallets (and eyes) closed.
Add a comment...