Musn't Rush Things! Brazil Urges Delay In Any Binding Climate Talks Until 2013 - SMH
The debate on whether the world needs stronger greenhouse gas cuts to keep the planet from warming by 2C should be deferred until next year, according to Brazil's lead negotiator at the upcoming talks in Doha.
Ambassador Luiz Alberto Figueiredo says delegates at Qatar - the most important climate negotiations of the year - should prioritise an extension of the Kyoto protocol and the rules for a longer-term agreement rather than be distracted by the crucial but contentious issue of emissions reductions.
Environmental groups, however, are calling for greater urgency from Brazil, a country that has won plaudits at previous gatherings for leading the search for common ground between wealthy and developing nations.
With the Kyoto protocol set to expire at the end of the year, Figueiredo said there is an urgent need to ensure the continuation of a process that has been the foundation of international discussions for more than a decade, despite its shrinking support among the initial signatories.
EDIT
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/brazil-calls-for-delay-in-talks-to-cut-emissions-20121116-29fo4.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
FFS, man. I hate to sound like a jerk or anything, but since when did constant handwringing ever prove to be anything other than a burden, to any cause? 
If we really want a good chance for change, we need to KEEP GOING. Okay? Even many of our more pessimistic brothers & sisters in arms, as it were, are still out there trying to make a positive difference. If we give up now, then the worst will be far more likely to happen.....it isn't over 'till it's over.
In all honesty, though, this whole Titanic thing is kind of apples-and-oranges.
Here's a more apt(though not perfect) comparison: In Miami one autumn, people are awaiting the news concerning a Category 4 hurricane off the coast of Hispaniola, as to whether or not it will hit South Florida in the next 48 hours, and if so, how hard. A small group of people are going around carrying signs saying, "The End is Near", "Miami will perish", etc., and are proclaiming doom-and-gloom; 220 mph winds, all of South Florida destroyed, tens of thousands dead, etc., while another significantly larger group of people on the opposite is calling it a bunch of hype and saying there's nothing to worry about, etc.. The National Weather Service, meanwhile, is warning people that while a direct hit to Miami is not likely based on their forecasts, it is still possible, and people should try to prepare for the worst. Most people heed the warnings as usual, although with varying speed and caution, but some, however, don't. Two days later, the hurricane makes its landfall about 25 miles due north of Miami, as a low-end Category 5. Though the damage does unfortunately exceed all of the most optimistic estimates, it's also not quite as severe as the most pessimistic estimates as well. Unfortunately, a somewhat larger than usual number of people blew off preparations assisted by the blowhardiness of the aforementioned pair of groups of cranks; the first meant no harm, but the other group was really just looking to stir up trouble, with the latter group bearing the vast majority of the brunt of responsibility. 450 people are killed by this storm in Florida; had it not been for the scaredy-cats and troublemakers(especially the latter group!), it would have been around 350 or so.
This hypothetical scenario isn't particularly based on any real life event, but serves as a metaphor for what we are faced with in respect to climate change.
The cranks I mentioned? Notice how I always mentioned these two groups in order, the ones who were genuinely deeply frightened by the prospect of the disaster but who went a little too far with the doom-and-gloom(and who unintentionally complicated the situation) coming first, and those who honestly didn't give a shit about the safety and well-being of others, and only that they get their 15 minutes of fame(and who bore the great majority of the responsibility for the exacerbation of the death toll), second.
These people were a stand-in for the most extreme of the climate "doomers"
McPherson, Light, etc.), and the climate change deniers(Monckton, Christy, Booker, et al.), respectively.
And the NWS, of course, served as a stand in, for people such as Peter Sinclair, David Titley, Katherine Hayhoe, the Skeptical Science guys, and others like them.
