Ever positive move helps, every step in the right direction helps...why throw in the towel now? Let them agree to start moving in the right direction, then once they have started taking appropriate steps push for an increase.

You're absolutely right! Holy cow, you should be on the G-8 panel, not all those world leaders with loads of scientific data, they're useless! YOU, with your pessimistic, speculative world view definitely know more than the leaders of the world...

wow it takes that long? give me a break we'll all be driving electric cars by then...we better be!

Damage to the environment is irreversible now. It is not a question of whether we damage the environment, it is how much. There is a golden mean between doing nothing and a panic closing down of the whole of civilization. I don't know enough of the science to say if the level they have chosen is reasonable, but I know enough of the politics to be pretty sure they won't meet it.

The G-8 could have easily agreed to cut GHG emissions in half by 2020.They are just dragging their feet because the oil industries pressure on them.There is no reason why ,with real effort ,that we can't achieve that goal in 12 years.

There is no global warming problem, I'm ashamed of the G-8. Let's hope the damage to civilization isn't irreversible!

No it is all bullshit. This guy knows what he is talking about http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2008/20080303175301.aspx http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080303154249.aspx

Global warming is bullshit. The founder of the Weather Channel had this to say: It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in [sic] allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus. Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda. Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment. [...] I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming. In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious.

I fully expect to be down rated for being politically incorrect, but... Was the damage to the environment irreversible due to the past natural swings in global temperature and CO2 concentration? Some scientists insist after studying ice cores, tree rings, etc. that atmospheric levels of CO2 have been higher in the past. Levels do change with time. There have been mini ice ages and hot periods in recorded history, and apparently much more significant ones prior to written records. Some analyses of historical data indicate CO2 concentrations lag global warming trends, not precede them. Since there is no "normal" level of GHGs (historically it changes constantly)... who gets to decide if some atmospheric change is "good" or "bad"? If it could be proved that human activity is causing more significant variation than historic variation (I don't believe it can), who gets to decide if that is good or bad for the Earth? Change is not a universally bad thing... and it is inevitable. It could be argued that no matter what humans do, there likely will be some irreversible changes to Earth's biodiversity, climate and local weather because of volcanoes, forest fires, plant and animal population redistribution, solar activity, etc, etc, etc. You know, some people believe that all those hydrocarbons buried in those oil and coal field used to be living plants and animals, and perhaps re-introducing all that carbon and hydrogen back into the ecosystem will dramatically increase life and biodiversity over time... nobody is smart enough to know and evaluate ALL the variables. No one can accurately predict the weather 24 hours in advance, and nobody really knows what is going to happen to the atmosphere, climate or ecosystems in the near or distant future regardless of human CO2 production.

The G8 are a bunch of puppets following the agenda from the international elite. GW is a hoax. My 2 cents.

It is just alarmist bullshit. This guy knows what he is talking about, he is a Ph.D, from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg.: http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

Forty-two years is an eternity in modern history. During that time span, starting in 1916, America fought in two World Wars and began launching manned spacecraft into the upper atmosphere. We went from being bitter enemies with the Empire of Japan to one of their largest trading partners, between 1940 and 1982. My point is that the "goal" of cutting greenhouse emissions by 50% in another 42 years is SO FAR OUT in the future as to be meaningless. It's a "feel good" agreement that is quite likely to NEVER be implemented. Long way of saying "Yes, that's too late to be meaningful."

The environment is far more resilient than people think. Just look at Chernobyl or areas ravaged by volcanoes (which put out far more greenhouse gases in days than humanity has produced in centuries!). They've all bounced back, and there's absolutely no reason to believe that nature will not repair itself, given a little time. The damage was not done overnight. Neither will the repair.