BBC BLOGS - Richard Black's Earth Watch
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
« Previous | Main | Next »

Hu's talking: Who's listening?

Richard Black | 18:11 UK time, Tuesday, 22 September 2009

"It depends..."

Thus came the initial reaction from Todd Stern, the chief US climate envoy, after China's President Hu Jintao told the special session of UN heads of government that he would set mandatory targets for improving "carbon intensity".

Hu_Jintao(In other words, between now and 2020, Chinese factories and power stations and everything else will become more efficient - making more stuff while producing less and less carbon dioxide per unit of stuff.)

Mr Hu's speech was trailed as potentially ground-breaking by no less a figure than the UN's chief climate official, Yvo de Boer, who said China could "become the front-runner" in climate diplomacy.

Did Mr Hu deliver?

"It depends..."

We don't know how big the carbon intensity targets will be, for one thing. Mr Hu described them as "notable"; if they're not notable enough, they will simply be swamped by economic growth.

(The current Five-Year Plan, running from 2006 to 2010, has a goal of improving carbon intensity by 20% during the course of the five years).

Mr Hu also re-affirmed the target of providing 15% of China's primary energy mix by 2020 from non-fossil-fuel sources - renewables and nuclear - and of re-foresting tracts of his country.

And that's about it.

His speech was heard by several key audiences.

One consisted of the other world leaders sitting in the UN chamber - and they seemed appreciative, although the clapometer didn't whizz round as far for him as for Japan's incoming Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama as he re-affirmed a pledge to slash emissions by about a third over the next 11 years.

An important sub-set of that UN chamber audience was the wider G77 bloc of developing countries with whom China is allied on most issues, and certainly on this one.

Bangladesh_floodsMr Hu made a large nod to them by referencing the needs of least developed countries (LDCs) and African nations for financial and technical support in adopting low-carbon technologies and protecting themselves against impacts of climate change.

Then there was an audience back home - all the technocrats and bureaucrats and other agents of the Chinese government who have been charged over the last few decades with growing the national economy, and who have succeeded in that task very well - perhaps too well for the country's ecological health.

Mr Hu appeared to be telling them that now they have a second key task - de-carbonising the economy while continuing to grow it.

But in the short term, his most important audience lay a few hundred kilometres southwest of UN headquarters, in Washington DC.

Some time this month, the US Senate is due to start debating the Waxman-Markey Bill, which would set emissions caps for various bits of the economy and establish a nationwide carbon market.

Senatorial scepticism on the Kyoto Protocol was a leading reason why the treaty did not deliver what it once promised; the same scepticism in regard of the UN climate process now could substantially scupper the negotiations taking place in Copenhagen in December.

And the main reason for senatorial scepticism this time round - as last - is that leading developing nations such as China aren't "doing enough".

No-one seriously expects developing countries to accept numerical cuts in their greenhouse gas emissions.

But many richer nations believe calculations (stemming from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) that the more successful ones, including China, must curb the growth in their emissions by about 30% from the "business as usual" trajectory by 2020 or thereabouts.

One senses that anything like 30% would be acceptable to Mr Obama's administration - but the Obama administration is not the US Senate.

If Mr Hu's words are heard in the Senate as a firm commitment to take firm action, swift passage of a strong form of Waxman-Markey becomes more likely, which in turn makes a Copenhagen deal more likely. The reverse is also true.

China_wind_farmSo how will they regard it? We shall see.

One canard that really has to be slain at some point is the notion that any of these pledges, by China or any other country, are really mandatory in the sense that you or I would understand the word.

It's mandatory that you obey the speed limit when driving, otherwise you'll be up before a judge and might lose your licence. It's mandatory that you fill in a tax return or else you're liable for a fine. It's mandatory that you feed the pet tortoise otherwise it'll die and the kids won't speak to you for a week.

But in all the fine words of the UN climate convention and Kyoto Protocol, in the language likely to come out of Copenhagen, in the UK's "legally-binding" commitment to cut emissions by 80% by 2050 and so far in China's adoption of "notable" carbon intensity targets, there is no sanction - nothing - that compels or even strongly persuades countries to meet their targets.

Mandatory? Not according to the Oxford English Dictionary definition ("binding", "obligatory", "compulsory", "not discretionary"...)

So what has come out of this UN special session, a personal initiative of Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon?

Too soon to tell, perhaps - but I don't think there is any chance that two years ago, you could have had the UN chief, US president, Chinese president, Japanese prime minister and the leader of a low-lying island state such as the Maldives all in the same room and all singing from broadly the same hymnsheet ("vital issue", "time running out", "need to make a deal", etc etc etc).

Whether that's enough to give UN negotiations the kick they appear to need is another matter.

"It depends..." - on a lot of things, including what lies behind the word "notable".

Comments

or register to comment.

  • 1. At 7:20pm on 22 Sep 2009, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    Just an intuitive thought, probably not worth a fig but....perhaps President Hu Jintao is more astute than he is given credit for.

    Complain about this comment

  • 2. At 8:01pm on 22 Sep 2009, ghostofsichuan wrote:

    As with all things political the response is political. President Hu is posturing China because of fears that the West will be reluctant buyers of Chinese products. Aside from the human rights issues, the lack of labor laws, the corruption of all levels of governments and data and information sources that read more like Chinese history, a mix of fact and myth, this is a non-commitment commitment. The Chinese citizen is a unit of the State and any sacrifice, health, working conditions, etc., are expected without complaint. To challenage the authority of the State is a crime. Most of the summits around Climate Change are productions to ease the concerns at home. The public is asking about the issue and the leaders are crafting responses. This has and remains more theater than policy. The reality is that nothing will change until a non-fossil fuel source(s) is available and coal and oil interest will control or forestall the development of such products. As with most change, the people will start to purchase alternatives and convert from fossil fuels and the governments will only take the lead when very little is needed to be done....except for the development of taxes. China is China and as it approaches 60 years as a Communist State it will be interesting to see how it will dance around the conversion to captialism and the formation of the wealthy class in a classless society.

    Complain about this comment

  • 3. At 8:06pm on 22 Sep 2009, Jack Frost wrote:

    The last time I saw Todd Stern waffle numbers was on the always interesting Hard Talk.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00mw0k1/HARDtalk_Todd_Stern/

    "The IPCC laid down a path, they didn't lay down the only path."

    In any case the American Cap & Trade bill still has a long long way to go before being amalgamated from both Representatives and Senates houses into a compromised bill. IF it gets passed through the Senate.

    Absolutely nothing will be agreed by America in this December summit until anything is agreed on at home. Period.

    Complain about this comment

  • 4. At 8:07pm on 22 Sep 2009, TVGgirl wrote:

    Richard -- I reckon your analysis is spot on. Let's hope cooler heads in the Senate prevail. The FT reported the other day: "China will be at the forefront of combating climate change by 2020 if it meets government targets on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the International Energy Agency suggests.

    "The finding contrasts sharply with the widespread image internationally of China as a country of inefficient, carbon-intensive industry that is resisting international calls to curb its emissions.

    "Fatih Birol, IEA chief economist, said: “If China reaches its targets – and in the past, it has reached most of its targets of this kind – its emissions [growth] will have declined so much by 2020 that it will be the country that has achieved the largest emission reductions. China will be at the forefront of combating climate change.”" http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4eab7e44-a61c-11de-8c92-00144feabdc0,dwp_uuid=9c33700c-4c86-11da-89df-0000779e2340.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 5. At 9:52pm on 22 Sep 2009, beijing_2008 wrote:

    One can always count on ghostofsichuan to bring human rights into any discussion on China. From reading the said author's accounts, one would be forgiven for thinking that China's entire population is oppressed by the State to the extent that the air smells wonderful simply due to the fear of farting on the part of its citizens.

    I'm quite sure that ghostofsichuan could even bring human rights into a discussion about Chinese food.

    Complain about this comment

  • 6. At 11:27pm on 22 Sep 2009, davblo2 wrote:

    beijing_2008 #5: "One can always count on ghostofsichuan..."

    We value respect and politeness here; even when under stress.

    Next we value useful information.

    If you have some we would be glad to hear it.

    /davblo2

    Complain about this comment

  • 7. At 00:05am on 23 Sep 2009, manysummits wrote:

    "beijing_2008 #5: "One can always count on ghostofsichuan..."

    We value respect and politeness here; even when under stress.

    Next we value useful information.

    If you have some we would be glad to hear it."

    - davblo2

    - manysummits seconds this

    Complain about this comment

  • 8. At 00:08am on 23 Sep 2009, CommentAngel wrote:

    CHINA could solve the problem instead of complaining about developed countries.

    1. We in the US need to stop our petty bickering and develop high-speed rail for inter and intra city traffic. This will dramatically CUT emissions, CUT road maintenance expenses, CUT deaths from accidents, CREATE good jobs and CREATE all sorts of more environmentally friendly transportation and living alternatives.

    2. CHINA needs to stop whining about being a "poor developing nation." That's just not true any more.

    3. CHINA needs to take responsibility for being a 'good neighbour' to the rest of the world. It can't pollute the air without affecting everyone.

    4. CHINA needs to stop whining about history and be more willing to contribute to the future.

    5. CHINA is in a position to contribute more to the solution than the US, the EU or any other group of nations combined. How? The same way they by-passed all the infrastructure infighting the US has to endure with telecom. China never had a good land-line infrastructure. It did not exist. When mobile technology became available, they implemented it.

    The recent European Car show highlighted the new all electric vehicles. Cool cars! Great for narrow streets, no pollution (from the car), and reliant on new, developing technologies. China makes most of the world's laptop batteries anyway. It's not a big jump to the car batteries.

    Problem with electric cars is recharging. (and acceptance in the US) That electric cars only go so far on one charge and are smaller is an advantage in China. Traffic in most cities is so bad that you can't go much over 20mph anyway.

    China can tell people to get electric cars and they will. China can mandate electric charging stations and it will get done. Look how fast gas stations sprung up. Less than 20 years ago, there weren't any.

    China wants to develop new technologies. Let them! They should be pushed to look forward to all-electric vehicles instead of backward to Hummers and combustion engines. What a feather in their caps if they were the first country to fully embrace all-electric cars! And what a boon to the world (and the Chinese people) in the reduction of emissions and continued economic development.

    Complain about this comment

  • 9. At 00:11am on 23 Sep 2009, manysummits wrote:

    Hu's talking - who's listening?
    Richard Black | 18:11 UK time, Tuesday, 22 September 2009


    I am. It's a bit of progress. 'TVGgirl' (#4) is right.

    Everyone's posturing, that's also true.

    - Manysummits -

    PS: Posturing can also be a prelude to decisive action, and no, I'm not holding my breath.

    Complain about this comment

  • 10. At 01:15am on 23 Sep 2009, endyjai wrote:

    Pros and cons of authoritarianism.

    But China is doing well, and is improving in most if not all fronts.

    The larger the educated population in China becomes, the more accountable and less devotee-like they'd be to the CCP. When that time comes, unless another cultural genocide comes along or another multi alliance war against China occurs, China will be thriving in a self regulating and high percentage represented government.

    Singapore times 300.

    Complain about this comment

  • 11. At 01:19am on 23 Sep 2009, endyjai wrote:

    CommentAngel,

    Just wow.

    The US has 4.5 times the emissions per head. China can't cut... they just have to ensure that future energy consumers gain clean energy and that their first fridge is solar powered.

    Complain about this comment

  • 12. At 01:21am on 23 Sep 2009, purple wrote:

    China has already made possibly the greatest collective contribution to the environment through its control of population. Underlying all green issues is the simple fact of too many people and not enough volunteers to solve the problem. :)

    That is the crux of all problems. It can be argued, from the middle of a puddle rather than its periphery, that China now reaps the benfit of population policy put in place previously. The reduced growth, means that actually there is very much more to go around. It is basic growth theory (economics) stood on its head and can, be said to work, rather well. At first thought and reflex, this argument is purely foolish. IT IS NOT.

    Population size and its problems are the real international issue and problems facing the world.

    Complain about this comment

  • 13. At 02:17am on 23 Sep 2009, manysummits wrote:

    I've been rereading some of my 'best thinking' articles.

    One of them, which just jumps off the page, especially in hindsight, is George Monbiot's St. Patrick's Day/09; "A Self-Fulfilling Prophecy."

    http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/03/17/a-self-fulfilling-prophecy/
    -----------

    "As the professor of energy policy Dieter Helm has shown, Stern’s assumption that our consumption can continue to grow while our emissions fall is implausible(8). To have any hope of making substantial cuts we have both to reduce our consumption and transfer resources to countries like China to pay for the switch to low-carbon technologies...

    The world won’t adapt and can’t adapt: the only adaptive response to a global shortage of food is starvation. Of the two strategies it is mitigation, not adaptation, which turns out to be the most feasible option, [my emphasis] even if this stretches the concept of feasibility to the limits. As Dieter Helm points out, the action required today is unlikely but "not impossible." It is a matter ultimately of human well being and ethics.”(19)
    -------------

    It has been almost five months now since three of us wrote the 'Mayday Declaraation.' Since then I am more convinced than ever that our declaration has merit. It was so shocking to actually write it and post it that I for one can scarcely believe we did. I think I may just now be coming out of shock and more fully realizing how close to reality we attempted to come, and perhaps did!

    George Monbiot states that in the final analysis, it is a matter "of human well being and ethics."

    I am reminded of a definition of 'ethics' I saw recently. One school of thought suggests that true 'ethics' is characterized by unforced or non-
    dogmatic good deeds, if I may paraphrase.

    Our fourth fundamental argument in the declaration is to the effect that once the world's people are aware of the gravity of the situation, and its true dimension, they will "do the right thing."

    That may seem a slim line to hang humanity's future on, but much depends on the quality of the line.

    I have learned in these past months that intellectual scientific discussion does not sway the public, as 'who to believe' is unclear.

    Fine. Something else will have to happen to turn the tide of public doubt and skepticism, and to overcome 'sensibleoldgrannie's "newsfatigue."

    I don't know what that something is.
    --------------

    Another of my 'thinking' articles is James Lovelocks'

    The Fight to get aboard Lifeboat UK

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article5682887.ece
    ---------------

    This is an excerpt from his most recent book, "The Vanishing Face of Gaia," and a more sombre read it is hard to imagine.

    Mr. Lovelock seems to favor adaptation, as he believes we have not the ability to mitigate in a timely and substantial fashion.

    Every news article to date supports this view.

    Nevertheless I favor George Monbiot's thinking, if only because it is similar to mine.

    We need Wallace Broecker's CO2 eating artificial trees, and something to bring home the reality of our collective plight.

    - Manysummits -

    PS: Jacques Cousteau always maintained that:

    "It is only the impossible missions which succeed."

    I don't think we should make light of this statement.





    Complain about this comment

  • 14. At 02:35am on 23 Sep 2009, Jack Hughes wrote:

    I would love to know why the 'talks about talks' are taking so long.

    I can picture it now:

    1. Obama: We will drink the Kool Aid if you drink it as well.
    2. Barista (EU): OK. But you drink first.
    3. China: Great idea - you guys start now, and we'll follow next year.
    4. Africa: We want more presents. Now.

    Rinse and repeat and rinse again and repeat again...

    Complain about this comment

  • 15. At 04:50am on 23 Sep 2009, suozhe wrote:

    To herosrest #12: I couldn't agree with you more, but apparently few people see this. They don't know that a hundred years ago the west worried about the Yellow Peril, that too many Chinese people would flood over their land.

    davblo2(#6), may I ask where is the information in your post? Please judge youself before you judge other people. Try it and you will like the world better. The message of beijing_2008 is very clear, that the post by ghostofsichuan is biased and contains unfounded condemnation against a place he/she apparently has no idea of. Please, ghostofsichuan, I am from Sichuan.

    Everyone, please think of this, instead of promising a target that you all seem to have doubt about, would you rather want China to not make any such promise at all?

    Complain about this comment

  • 16. At 08:36am on 23 Sep 2009, ishkandar wrote:

    "It's mandatory that you feed the pet tortoise otherwise it'll die and the kids won't speak to you for a week."

    If I didn't feed the pet tortoise, the kids will chuck it in the cook pot and make a damn good soup out of it !! They might even if I fed it anyway !! :-)

    Complain about this comment

  • 17. At 09:01am on 23 Sep 2009, ishkandar wrote:

    No 8 "CHINA needs to take responsibility for being a 'good neighbour' to the rest of the world. It can't pollute the air without affecting everyone."

    Why ?? Just so that the US can be a "bad neighbour" ?? The average American is more than 4x more polluting than the average Chinese. When Americans cut their pollution levels down the that of the Chinese, then they can talk about being "good neighbours" !! Until then, I'd suggest that they stop using up so much of the world's resources.

    "CHINA needs to stop whining about history and be more willing to contribute to the future."

    America should stop whining and cut out its "Supersize" culture !! Enough rainforests in the Amazon have been destroyed to supply Americans with beef !!

    "The recent European Car show highlighted the new all electric vehicles. Cool cars! Great for narrow streets, no pollution (from the car), and reliant on new, developing technologies. China makes most of the world's laptop batteries anyway. It's not a big jump to the car batteries."

    And where will the energy come from to power those electric cars and how "green" is that source ?? That is the first and most important question !! Currently, China supplies much of the Lithium for those modern batteries. Later, it may be South America which has a salt lake full of that stuff !! The Japanese have planned a factory in Britain to produce those car batteries but they still have to source the Lithium from China !!

    "Problem with electric cars is recharging. (and acceptance in the US) That electric cars only go so far on one charge and are smaller is an advantage in China. Traffic in most cities is so bad that you can't go much over 20mph anyway.

    China can tell people to get electric cars and they will. China can mandate electric charging stations and it will get done. Look how fast gas stations sprung up. Less than 20 years ago, there weren't any."

    Why should China mandate electric cars when it can mandate the far more efficient public transports like trams, etc. ?? Cars are an American obsession. The Chinese are still more used to bicycles and public transport !! Already, they have electrified much of their railway system. Now they are building their high speed rail system to cover much of the country.

    "What a feather in their caps if they were the first country to fully embrace all-electric cars!"

    Nice dream but currently impractical !! The Chinese are very pragmatic and will go for what works rather than dreams. Solve today's problems today rather than worry about tomorrow's problems. If you can't solve today's problems, tomorrow's problems will double !!

    Britain worried about tomorrow's problems in the past, especially in the nuclear generators, and look at what we have (or not have) now !! The French just went ahead and did it !!

    Complain about this comment

  • 18. At 09:09am on 23 Sep 2009, ishkandar wrote:

    No 1 "Just an intuitive thought, probably not worth a fig but....perhaps President Hu Jintao is more astute than he is given credit for."

    Wasn't there an English saying - "Least said, soonest mended"

    Perhaps, his advisors told him that he should not give others any room to attack him because of his "grand pronouncements", so he made cautious statements !! It's a matter of reading between the lines.

    Complain about this comment

  • 19. At 09:22am on 23 Sep 2009, jon112uk wrote:

    So basically no change....

    UK to carry out suicidal, back to the dark ages, cuts in our economy.

    Worlds biggest emitter (China) and others to carry INCREASING emissions.

    Overall global emissions - the figure that counts if global warming is genuinely your motivation - continue to rise.


    Anyone spot a problem with this scheme?

    Complain about this comment

  • 20. At 11:51am on 23 Sep 2009, manysummits wrote:

    Gravity Field and Steady-State Ocean Circulation Explorer

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goce_satellite

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8268942.stm

    Mission objectives (from Wikipedia)

    - To determine gravity-field anomalies with an accuracy of 10–5 ms–2 (1 mGal).[2]

    - To increase resolution, the satellite will fly in an unusually low orbit.

    - To determine the geoid with an accuracy of 1–2 cm.

    - To achieve the above at a spatial resolution better than 100 km.
    -------------------

    It is using an ion-propulsion system.

    "The ion propulsion electric engine ejects xenon ions at velocities exceeding 40,000 m/s, which will compensate for the orbital decay losses. GOCE's mission will end when the 40 kg xenon fuel tank empties (lifetime of about 20 months).[2]"
    -------------------------------------

    All conditions for measurement are apparently extremely favorable just now, a 'spot of good luck,' with the Sun cooperating.

    For interests sake:

    The "Great Indian Arc of the Meridian" survey by Great Britain began in 1800 and culminated in the measurement of the height of Mount Everest.

    It was conceived by William Lambton, and carried to completion by Sir George Everest, as a geoid measurement, like the 'Goce' and 'Grace' satellites, and measured the curve of the Earth to unprecedented accuracy.

    For those who will read both the BBC article and Wikipedia links above, I would like to emphasize the extraordinary capacity of science, exemplified in the lugging across India in the 1800's of a half-ton 'Great Theodillite' for some fifty years to triangulate the Indian sub-continent, and the super-sensitivity of both the 'Grace' and 'Goce' satellites.

    There is no difference in the science of yesterday or today, in triangulation or climate studies, in that almost beyond belief dedication and expertise characterize the field of 'science.'

    Those who deride climate science and dismiss its findings so flippantly conflate politics and business, which we are all too familiar with and sceptical about, with the discovery of new knowledge, i.e., science.

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 21. At 1:50pm on 23 Sep 2009, ghostofsichuan wrote:

    The question to be asked of President Hu is: with the building of, on average, one coal fired electric plant per week, how will emissions goals be met?

    Beijing- 2008: If the sale of tainted baby formula and other food products that kill and make people serious ill is considered a human rights issue than the answer to your question is yes.

    Suozhe: I agree that a statement is better than no statement and China's commitment is no weaker than others. I have sorrow for the father who asked the government to investigate the construction of the schools that collapsed during the earthquake and has now been jailed for seeking the cause of the death of his child. If this is the government response how can they be trusted on other matters.

    As in most countries, one must distinguish between the people and the government. I have great faith in the Chinese people and this government is being changed as all previous governments have been changed by the forces of the Chinese culture. Like the Western world, the industrialization of China has been accomplished at great costs to the environment and the health of the citizens.

    Complain about this comment

  • 22. At 3:59pm on 23 Sep 2009, Gates wrote:

    I think at the very least, China wanted to appear to be taking the lead on climate politics. It will no doubt be in their mind that the potential economic interests of being the first clean, efficient nation are massive. That may be the driving force for their decisions, but it is good news none the less. America will need to up their game.

    Complain about this comment

  • 23. At 4:57pm on 23 Sep 2009, CommentAngel wrote:

    "Why ?? Just so that the US can be a "bad neighbour" ??"

    Seems actually reading is not your forte. The point of having "mass transit" __as I suggested__ would be to .... stop the pollution created by American cars in America.

    Averages lie. There are millions of Americans who create less than 1/10 of the pollution than any Chinese. The few who create more need to stop.

    I didn't say "follow the American model" I said 1) the US needs to change and 2) CHINA should stop whining and look forward. That for 8 years the US did nothing to reduce consumption and actually promoted excesses is inexcusable. That we had (PAST) an administration that denied climate change was a farce and 2/3 of AMERICANS know it. Our system provides a way for us to change our governance AND WE USED IT.

    If you had bothered to attempt any understanding, you would have seen my message as indicating that American consumption of world resources needs to be curtailed. It is not reasonable for any one country to deplete all the resources to the detriment of another. Just ask any person in Africa if they like all their natural resources being sold to CHINA.

    Americans are not exporting sickening air pollution to the world. There are no daily black skies in the US as there are in China. There are no cities where children cannot go outside to play because the air is so thick with pollution they can't see 10 meters. The US has cut our factory and institutional pollution outputs dramatically (not accounting for airplanes and autos) compared to China. And we don't have 40% of the population in some areas dying at 30 of multiple cancers or 50% of children born with pollution-related birth defects.

    "America should stop whining and cut out its "Supersize" culture !! Enough rainforests in the Amazon have been destroyed to supply Americans with beef !!"

    Bull. We have our own ranches and raise our own beef.

    Rainforests are not being destroyed to make way for cattle. They are being destroyed to make lightweight steel and corn-for-fuel - most of which is now being exported by Brasil to ... CHINA.

    "Why should China mandate electric cars when it can mandate the far more efficient public transports like trams, etc. ?? Cars are an American obsession. The Chinese are still more used to bicycles and public transport !! Already, they have electrified much of their railway system. Now they are building their high speed rail system to cover much of the country."

    FALSE. Chinese people deserve the same opportunities for personal transporation as anyone anywhere else. All I'm suggesting is that instead of looking BACKWARD, they look forward.

    The Chinese new-rich are far more obsessed with showing off their Hummers and BMWs and Rolls than anyone in the US ever dreamed. The rail system is NOT ELECTRIC. They are building a huge network of highways for all the new pollution-driven cars.

    TRUE. China is building / improving their rail system to include high-speed trains and replace older engines. If you bothered to actually read, I suggested the US do the same.

    If China wants to be a world leader, they have a great opportunity to do so by actively rejecting old, carbon-based coal-based technologies and putting their substantial human resources to work on developing new electric vehicles, new solar technologies (to power the new electric vehicles).

    Like I said, China is in a unique position. What they do is their choice. If they want to look backward and complain, they won't get very far and will hurt everyone in the process.

    If they want to look forward, they could dramatically change the world -- for the better.

    Complain about this comment

  • 24. At 7:25pm on 23 Sep 2009, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    Let the country with the least blemish (past or present) cast the first smear. I guess we can all go home then ;o)

    Complain about this comment

  • 25. At 8:02pm on 23 Sep 2009, newjohnblogger wrote:

    Yes - the carbon intensity concept probably gets around any commitment to an absolute % ceiling, me thinks - clever move.

    Also, plse - BBC - let's get real about always referring to renewables ahead of nuclear. because we all know nuclear is the only realistic option as our 'core' power generation over any timescale you care to choose. You can't produce and store enough electricity, relably enough from windmils. We all know the 'greenies' don't like to hear this - as it was all their protests etc that have caused the delays(including moratoriums etc) with the new-build nuclear power station progam, for which we are now paying the price (ie. the prospect of not having sufficient power generating capacity in the short/medium term)

    Rather ironic, and thanks for nothing, to our tree hugging friends


    Complain about this comment

  • 26. At 11:55pm on 23 Sep 2009, manysummits wrote:

    To ghostofsichuan #21:

    Interesting rebuttal - and thought provoking.
    --------

    I have finished reading "Early-warning signals for critical transitions," by Marten Scheffer ey al, 'Nature'; 3 September 2009; pp. 53-59.

    And I had the opportunity to discuss it briefly with a new acquaintance, a physicist. I learned in the article that Richard Alley was cited in discussing 'critical transitions' and 'flickering' with regard to climate change.

    And I have just printed off "Abrupt Climate Change", by Richard Alley et al; 'Science'; Vol 299; 28 March 2003; pp. 2005-2010, which is the article cited.

    Thanks again for the lead!

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 27. At 00:13am on 24 Sep 2009, manysummits wrote:

    To davblo2 and timjenvey:

    I have learned to my dismay that 'wunarik's village, as well as the villages of more than one of my Sudanese, Dinka friends, was indeed attacked and that it is apparently some one hundred Dinka who have died (phone reports).

    And it is about North vs South, with colonial tactics manifest large, yet again. It seems it is only the colonial powers which change.

    What I am experiencing, here in faraway Canada, can, I think, be expected everywhere in the near future. There is no place to hide, and there is no place to run.

    So simplicity reigns, and we will have to fix things up, from where we stand, and as we speak.

    The physicist I spoke of in my previous post has offered to help on the 'Mayday Declaration,' shall we call it the "Fall Update"?

    If this comes to pass, and there is a signature box at the end, perhaps it would be a good idea to sign with 'spirit names' (blogging names), and to indicate the geographic region of the signatories, as well as their more usual residence.

    For example:

    Underacanoe, Cloudrunner & Manysummits
    (Eastern slope of the Canadian Rockies, Calgary)

    Complain about this comment

  • 28. At 01:06am on 24 Sep 2009, jr4412 wrote:

    ghostofsichuan #21.

    hear, hear.


    sensibleoldgrannie #24.

    too true.


    newjohnblogger #25.

    "..and thanks for nothing, to our tree hugging friends"

    oh, you've seen the future... don't forget to thank General Motors for the EV1 fiasco (for example).


    shouts to davblo2, manysummits (re-write of declaration: when, where?)

    Complain about this comment

  • 29. At 01:25am on 24 Sep 2009, manysummits wrote:

    Saludos jr4412 !!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Maybe soon - haven't heard from davblo

    ~ Compadre ~

    Complain about this comment

  • 30. At 01:41am on 24 Sep 2009, manysummits wrote:

    To jr4412 & davblo2:

    I was just working on an XHTML 1.0 version of the declaration - try this on your browser:

    \\\ The Mayday Declaration /// [header size one]

    ~ Limits to Growth ~ from "A Planet United" ~ [header size three]

    background-color: #ffcc99;

    color: #993300;

    font-family: Georgia, serif;

    - Manysummits, alive and well in Calgary -

    Complain about this comment

  • 31. At 02:11am on 24 Sep 2009, jr4412 wrote:

    manysummits #30.

    "..working on an XHTML 1.0 version of the declaration.."

    cheers.

    just went to davblo2's site to re-read the original, I hope that we can keep it 'terse'.

    re. browser, see email.

    Complain about this comment

  • 32. At 03:05am on 24 Sep 2009, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    Try a bit of sensibleoldgrannie reading to unravel the knitting tea pot cosy and the crochet toilet roll cover.
    Really read and unpick:
    Thomas More Utopia 1478-1535
    Niccolo Machiavelli The Prince 1469 -1527

    The reading might lift a veil or two, and whet your appetite to read more and see the wood for the trees. I am back of to sleep ;o)

    Complain about this comment

  • 33. At 09:20am on 24 Sep 2009, davblo2 wrote:

    manysummits #27: "I have learned to my dismay..."

    Yes. Very sad.
    This report mentions the name of the village...
    100 die in attack on Sudanese village

    "Tribesmen from the Lou Nuer ethnic group raided the Dinka Hol village of Duk Padiet in Jonglei state, forcing a company of Sudan People’s Liberation Army soldiers based there to flee."

    "...north-south tensions remain high, with Sudan still divided by religious, ethnic and ideological differences."

    Presumably some "powers" are using said differences to motivate people to fighting; and the existence of a "Liberation Army" doesn't seem to help.

    --------

    jr4412 #28: ...

    ghostofsichuan #21. hear, hear.
    sensibleoldgrannie #24. too true.


    Second those; (and big Hi to jr4412)

    --------

    manysummits #29 "haven't heard from davblo"

    If you google "mayday declaration a message of hope" the existing versions (forum and wiki format) show up top of the list.
    Two more options would be "simple web page" or "blog" site where it could be the main blog entry with comments to follow.
    Open to suggestions.
    --------

    All the best; davblo2

    Complain about this comment

  • 34. At 09:30am on 24 Sep 2009, simon-swede wrote:

    To avoid catastrophic environmental change humanity must stay within defined 'planetary boundaries' for a range of essential Earth-system processes, argue Johan Rockström and his co-authors in a feature printed in this week’s edition of Nature. If one boundary is transgressed, then safe levels for other processes could also be under serious risk, they caution.

    The feature and seven commentaries on it from leading experts that can be accessed at Nature Reports Climate Change (FREE internet access, see http://tinyurl.com/planetboundaries).
    Here there is also a link to a longer article from the Stockholm Resilience Centre on which the Nature feature is based.

    Complain about this comment

  • 35. At 11:49am on 24 Sep 2009, manysummits wrote:

    To simon-swede:

    I just had a quick look - impressive, and about time these are free of access. I shall of course print off all of these, the feature and the seven commentaries.
    -------------------

    To jr; davblo; to all:

    We can use these new articles I think in updating our Mayday Declaration.

    I am wondering if there are any others who would like 'in' on the 'Fall Update'?

    It's a hard process - I can tell you that! But the result last time was worth it - better than if just one person had written it. The different points of view and emphasis are a fractal of the real world.

    It would be nice to have it ready before the Copenhagen Climate summit, well before I would think?

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 36. At 12:27pm on 24 Sep 2009, jr4412 wrote:

    sensibleoldgrannie #32.

    downloaded Utopia eBook -- 60 pages and 44000 words approx. -- a lot to take in. perhaps you could supply a couple of paragraphs abstract/opinion?? thanks.


    davblo2 #33.

    "Two more options would be.."

    I like the blog format idea, would make it very easy for others to read and comment.

    should we furnish translations too?


    simon-swede #34.

    excellent reference link, thank you.


    manysummits #35.

    agree; perhaps we can get permission to use the main graphic? (which is seriously good, I think)

    Complain about this comment

  • 37. At 1:20pm on 24 Sep 2009, simon-swede wrote:

    jr4412, re #36

    Thanks!

    As for 'Utopia', the word was made up by More from the Greek words for “not” (ou) and “place” (topos) and thus meant “nowhere.” Enough said?

    Book I describes Christian Europe, divided by self-interest and greed for power and riches. Book II describes a pagan city-state in which the institutions and policies were entirely governed by reason where order and dignity prevail. It poses the question of whether evil can be 'cured' by the constraints imposed on individuals by society; or whether it can at best be mitigated, as human nature is inherently fallible.

    Complain about this comment

  • 38. At 1:51pm on 24 Sep 2009, ghostofsichuan wrote:

    manysummits:

    Sorry to hear about the events in Sudan...has been on-going for sometime now. China's relationship with the West as with much of Asia stems from Colonial period of occupation, exploitation, the full consequences are never immediate. The less there is to fight over the more brutal the conflicts. Difficult to construct global agreements when much of the world is in conflict. This supports the need to develop energy sources that are not tied to a grid, small villages around the world could benefit from solar and wind energy as the demands are low. Energy initiation seems to be linked to industrial production first and human consideration second. There is an imbalance, worldwide, in the interest of business and the interest of people. We have expereinced the results and hopefully a more balanced approach will be forthcoming. So little value in what we acquire and so much value in what we destroy.

    Complain about this comment

  • 39. At 11:10pm on 24 Sep 2009, manysummits wrote:

    To 'Mayday People':

    1) Target November 1/09 for posting?

    2) I think we need not reinvent the wheel. Let the Mayday Declaration stand with minor modifications, but add a "Fall Update" below, and below this, the signatories box.

    3) I just printed off Johan Rochstrom's feature article "A Safe Operating System for Humanity" from 'Nature'; vol 461; 24 Sept/09; pp 472-475.

    4) And I'm reviewing a few of the seven commentary articles.

    5) Our purpose might be different this time - to include this 'Nature' debate, especially as it is free on the internet (Thank You Nature!!), but essentially to publish something for easy access with signatures, to stand alone or to send to Copenhagen or the UN, if that was deemed a good idea, i.e., worthwhile.

    Possible mottos/mission statements:

    1) From where we stand and as we speak.

    2) So little value in what we acquire and so much value in what we destroy. (ghostofsichuan #38)

    'Ghostofsichuan', would you consider helping us?

    Note: 'Wunarik' has agreed to help in this 'Fall Update.' It appears an uncle and two cousins, are 21 and 17, were killed in the village battle.

    It would be nice to have all continents represented.

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 40. At 00:40am on 25 Sep 2009, jr4412 wrote:

    simon-swede #37.

    succinct, thanks (I think I'll pass on 'grannies' advice).

    Complain about this comment

  • 41. At 08:06am on 25 Sep 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    Could i ask how you guys intend to reduce population?

    Will you follow the pre-war model or the Chinese model or do you have other ideas?

    Will population control be in other countries or just your own?

    In which country will population control start or will it be worldwide?

    Which is your favoured method, forced sterilisation, forced abortion, culling or other?

    Will this be some kind of Logans Run scenario and where will you be in this scenario?

    Will you guys be part of an elite, allowed to have more than 1 child or will you allow any over population by your family to be "disposed of"?

    Where will your idea fit within the context of Human Rights?

    Thanks in advance

    Complain about this comment

  • 42. At 08:08am on 25 Sep 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    any chance you guys want to discuss this post:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/09/in_step_on_climate.html#P86175570

    Complain about this comment

  • 43. At 08:16am on 25 Sep 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    perhaps all the other countries should gang up on China and India, drop nuclear bombs, kill over 2 billion human beings and remove all their nasty emissions.

    hey presto! All the worlds problems suggested by your little club solved in one easy go!

    you guys are living in cloud cuckoo land

    Complain about this comment

  • 44. At 08:26am on 25 Sep 2009, simon-swede wrote:

    #41

    And when will you stop asking rhetorical questions?

    Complain about this comment

  • 45. At 08:47am on 25 Sep 2009, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    I am all for attempting to see the whole picture and I do think simon-swede's hijack of the definition of the book is a little bias. A better definition of both books that I have recommended would be from good old Wikki.

    Thomas More worked for Henry V111 and had to be very careful about what he said or wrote, on pain of death or imprisonment. His story about an imaginary island was really a philosophical debate (similar in design to the conversation in Plato's Republic.)

    Utopia is an imaginary island used as a device to explain government. Throughout the whole work it is quite difficult to work out if More is completely serious or what he is really getting at. The island is about the size of Britain, shaped like the Isle of Wight and ruled by city states (City states are governed individually by their own leader.) The people of these city states remind me of the Hobbits from Lord of the Rings. The society appears to be perfect but there are ominous underlying flaws which would make the place hellish for some. That is the point, one man's Utopia is another man's hell and you cannot please all of the people all of the time.

    The reason I have suggested the two titles is because they are both from a fly on the wall perspective of life and times of the day. Macheavelli deals with the art of Government and talks through the pro's and cons of various government styles and the consequences of weak government viewed from his own perspective of surviving through wars and different government styles.

    I think if we lived in green utopia we would be living in a sort of Tellytubby land, in little green hutches with windmills and solar panels on the top.

    Complain about this comment

  • 46. At 09:09am on 25 Sep 2009, simon-swede wrote:

    #45, grannie, no 'hijack' was intended. I was just responding to the request for a description. For what it is worth, I have read and enjoyed both the Prince and Utopia.

    Complain about this comment

  • 47. At 09:30am on 25 Sep 2009, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    Thank you simon-swede,

    Now I suggest a bit of light reading to those on the path. Speeches that Changed the World, with an introduction by Simon Sebag Montefiore, published by Quercus 2005. I found this book in a charity shop.

    Speeches and consequent actions tell their own tale.

    'Where there is muck their is brass'

    Complain about this comment

  • 48. At 10:02am on 25 Sep 2009, simon-swede wrote:

    San Francisco based power utility Pacific Gas & Electric (PG & E) has announced it will leave the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in protest over the organization's "extreme" position on climate change. The decision was taken in response to the call for a "trial" on climate science made by the US Chamber of Commerce. PG & E joins two other large energy firms (Duke Energy and Alstom) in protesting about opposition for climate change legislation.

    On a PG & E sponsored blog (‘next100’ – a site which looks at the intersection of the clean energy business and the environment) a post on 22 September entitled ‘Irreconcilable Differences’, the company’s position is made clear. It notes that in a letter to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, PG&E Chairman and CEO Peter Darbee cited "fundamental differences" over climate change to explain why the company is pulling out of the Chamber of Commerce, stating:

    “We find it dismaying that the Chamber neglects the indisputable fact that a decisive majority of experts have said the data on global warming are compelling and point to a threat that cannot be ignored. In our opinion, an intellectually honest argument over the best policy response to the challenges of climate change is one thing; disingenuous attempts to diminish or distort the reality of these challenges are quite another.”

    Here is the link to the posting: http://www.next100.com/2009/09/irreconcilable-differences.php

    Complain about this comment

  • 49. At 10:03am on 25 Sep 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    rhetorical?

    i would have expected you to have thought through your population control part of the declaration and have real answers.

    Complain about this comment

  • 50. At 10:30am on 25 Sep 2009, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    simon-swede,
    I am learning a lot from you and will eventually get my punctuation right and learn a few new words to strengthen my arguments.
    MangoChutneyUKOK.
    I hope I have set out some alternative population control facts. Perhaps you could develop a simplified visual reference for those who need a different message?

    Complain about this comment

  • 51. At 10:41am on 25 Sep 2009, Jack Hughes wrote:

    // green utopia = Tellytubby land, in little green hutches with windmills and solar panels on the top. //

    Bang on, Gran.

    It's incoherent.

    There are two visions of a green future:

    #1 is a hi-tech future with sci-fi solutions to everything - mirrors in space, solar panels in the Sahara, electric cars. Everyone is either making windmills or making websites - some are even making websites about windmills.

    #2 is a low-tech future where we live in wigwams and practice aromatherapy. We all sing happy songs while we hoe the fields - organic of course. Middle-Earth.

    Both are bonkers but even worse is that so many greenies believe in both visions at the same time.

    Complain about this comment

  • 52. At 10:44am on 25 Sep 2009, simon-swede wrote:

    #50, hi Grannie! I guess that means I'll need to correct my typos!?!?

    Complain about this comment

  • 53. At 11:39am on 25 Sep 2009, jr4412 wrote:

    MangoChutneyUKOK #41, #49.

    "Could i ask how you guys intend to reduce population?"

    personally I'd favour progressive taxation, ie. first child "free", for each additional child tax burden on family increases (steeply!).

    not the best option, I'm sure, but not needing your visions of "..forced sterilisation, forced abortion, culling..".

    #42.

    thank you for the link to "Taking a bite out of climate data", worth reading.

    Complain about this comment

  • 54. At 11:40am on 25 Sep 2009, davblo2 wrote:

    Jack_Hughes_NZ #51: "Both are bonkers..."

    Many would say that our current "modes" of life are already "bonkers".

    /davblo2

    Complain about this comment

  • 55. At 11:44am on 25 Sep 2009, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    simon-swede,
    I am dependent on you for this.

    Jack-Hughes-NZ,
    Thanks. I believe you are correct and there are two visions of a green future. The two visions will both be happening at the same time. The minority will have the high tech dream and the majority will have to live in Tellytubby land.
    Try reading John Norman (check him out on Wikki) John Norman wrote an interesting saga called the Chronicles of Gor. I will not tell you anymore than that. The books are a bit raunchy and politically incorrect but I enjoyed reading all of them when I was a teenager. Counter earth as an alternative to earth as we know it and apart from the rude bits, some of the thinking may already be thought.

    Complain about this comment

  • 56. At 11:57am on 25 Sep 2009, manysummits wrote:

    I was wondering - would a couple of 'denialists' like to participate in the 'Fall Update' to the Mayday Declaration?

    Perhaps 'timjenvey and CuckooToo?

    Not endorse it, I wouldn't expect that. But let's say we compared the Mayday Declaration, posted on May 1/09, with the presentation in 'Nature' which simon-swede suggested a few days ago?

    There are seven brief one-page commentaries on a number of issues brought up in the feature article. I have them all in a binder, and along with the 'Limits to Growth' revisited artilce in American Scientist May/June, and a few others, I thought it might be productive to look back from now to five months ago, and see if we have changed any of our views.

    It seems to me that the new 'Nature' article and commentary, including the editorial, omit a few key points present in the Mayday Declaration. These might be of even more significance than the inclusions.

    For example:

    Population does not have a commentary.

    Nor does Peak Oil

    Nor does United Nations or political reform

    Ghostofsichuan is from China, one of the two most populated countries on the globe, and as far as I know, the only large country that has practiced population control and has 'results'. I would personally be fascinated to know how that looks from the perspective of 'ghostofsichuan', in comparison to our previous views as stated in the Declaration.

    The idea is twofold - to further learning,

    and to reach our to a larger audience, as science, viv a vis the 'Nature' article, while a valiant attempt (posted free), will not be read by many, and it has I think huge ommissions.

    What say you all - including CuckooToo and Timjenvey???

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 57. At 1:04pm on 25 Sep 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @jr4412 #53

    So rich people can have more children than poor people?

    How do we deal with the unemployed and disabled people, would be reduce benefits if they have more children or would there be an exemption?

    Complain about this comment

  • 58. At 1:34pm on 25 Sep 2009, jr4412 wrote:

    MangoChutneyUKOK #57.

    "So rich people can have more children than poor people?"

    no, tax as a percentage of income/"wealth", same penalty, irrespective.

    "How do we deal with the unemployed and disabled people, would be reduce benefits if they have more children or would there be an exemption?"

    sigh.. I don't profess to have all (any?) answers.

    in any case, the declaration is an attempt to focus thinking on the MAJOR obstacles, like the idiocy of having one small planet with limited resources and indulging 216 (!!! count them) "nation states".

    population is not a major problem yet, by some estimates Earth could support in excess of 14bn people; we'll hit all sorts of other buffers long before there are that many inhumans.

    Complain about this comment

  • 59. At 1:55pm on 25 Sep 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    I'm just trying to point out the difficulties and possible violation of human rights of population control worldwide. Past attempts to control population led to the rise of Hitler, Action T4 and the holocaust.

    Complain about this comment

  • 60. At 2:22pm on 25 Sep 2009, jr4412 wrote:

    MangoChutneyUKOK #59.

    "Past attempts to control population led to the rise of Hitler.."

    oh dear, is that what you learned about 20th Century history?

    Complain about this comment

  • 61. At 2:38pm on 25 Sep 2009, ghostofsichuan wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 62. At 3:13pm on 25 Sep 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    I've learnt that eugenics is a form of population control

    "Of course, I had always known that the use of the term 'euthanasia' by the Nazi killers was a euphemism to camouflage their murder of human beings they had designated as 'life unworthy of life'; that their aim was not to shorten the lives of persons with painful terminal diseases but to kill human beings they considered inferior, who could otherwise have lived for many years."

    — The Origins of Nazi Genocide: From Euthanasia to the Final Solution, Henry Friedlander, UNC Press, 1997

    Complain about this comment

  • 63. At 4:20pm on 25 Sep 2009, ghostofsichuan wrote:

    manysummits and others: latest UN Climate Change Repoirt link:
    http://www.unep.org/compendium2009/

    dire projections for us all but do not expect governments to respond until crisis is at hand, just the nature of the beast. sent a post, some in Chinese, so don't know if it will appear. Did that for Beijing-2008, think he may be "government" blogger. We have had discussions on other pages. The dream is dead so the dream must be defended.
    The Confucian model povided a social order based on self-governance directed by ethical and moral principals and government open to all who prepared for the task. Over time only social order remained and the ethics and moral behaviors were no longer required and the path to governance corrupted. Same has the democarcies of the West. Before moving forward we should assess our social constructions and our ability to respond to a global crisis that could easily become a fight over basic resources.

    Complain about this comment

  • 64. At 5:15pm on 25 Sep 2009, jr4412 wrote:

    MangoChutneyUKOK #62.

    yes, and HOW did that lead "..to the rise of Hitler.." ??

    Complain about this comment

  • 65. At 5:26pm on 25 Sep 2009, jr4412 wrote:

    #64 continued.

    check out 'Weimarer Republik' & WW1 reparation payments to find out about the circumstances of Hitler's "rise" to power.

    Complain about this comment

  • 66. At 5:50pm on 25 Sep 2009, CuckooToo wrote:

    @manysummits

    I'm sorry manysummits, but I don't have anything to say on your declaration, because it doesn't speak for me and I totally disagree with everything it says.

    Complain about this comment

  • 67. At 7:19pm on 25 Sep 2009, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    CuckooToo,
    I had not seen your blogs until now and I notice immediately that you know your own mind and are prepared to defend it. I have had a read through your previous blogs and find what you say interesting. Is it possible that the debate will role on and on because by agreeing to disagree scientists are kept busy and are kept in plenty of work?

    Complain about this comment

  • 68. At 8:28pm on 25 Sep 2009, davblo2 wrote:

    sensibleoldgrannie #67: "Is it possible that the debate will role on and on because by agreeing to disagree scientists are kept busy and are kept in plenty of work?"

    You mean in the same way that the financial institutions, politicians and board directors could set the rules to benefit themselves?

    But then they'd never do that; would they?

    All the best; davblo2

    Complain about this comment

  • 69. At 9:22pm on 25 Sep 2009, Jack Hughes wrote:

    Most of what we read on this subject does not either prove nor disprove the man-mad-global-climate-catastrophe hypothesis.

    Every day the BBC covers another 'new report' on some study of tree frogs that finds they have fewer spots or more spots or are larger or smaller than in some previous 'golden age'.

    You know when reading these reports that they are going to incant the magic words 'climate change'. The only question is whether this is going to be in the first paragraph, the second or maybe even lower down.

    Anybody who thinks about these reports will quickly see that they do not prove nor disprove the CO2 hypothesis. Most of them don't even really prove anything at all about the weather or the climate because the experiment was not designed to cover these factors.

    And the meejah likes to glam-up these stories of course. On TV last week was a report of how a glacier in Greenland has melted so much that it has revealed houses and farms built by the Vikings. The bimbo running the story was wringing her hands and emoting to camera about this. Nobody asked the obvious question: did the Vikings really build their houses and try to farm the land underneath the glacier ? Or has it got colder and now warmer since then - in fact back to the same weather that the Vikings had.

    Complain about this comment

  • 70. At 11:21pm on 25 Sep 2009, manysummits wrote:

    To CuckooToo:

    Thanks for the prompt response. I thought it would give you a forum to log your disagreements? It's hard to believe that you could find "everything" in the declaration objectionable, as it covers a lot more territoty than just climate change. If you cahnge your mind - drop us a line.

    - Manysummits -


    Complain about this comment

  • 71. At 11:26pm on 25 Sep 2009, manysummits wrote:

    There's a new book out, by a Canadian:

    "Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming", by

    "James Hoggan, co-founder of DeSmogBlog.com, is president of James Hoggan & Associates, an award-winning public relations firm in Canada. Hoggan is also chair of the David Suzuki Foundation and a trustee of the Dalai Lama Center for Peace and Education."

    http://www.fedpubs.com/subject/enviro/climate_coverup.htm
    ----------------------------------------------------------

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 72. At 11:49pm on 25 Sep 2009, manysummits wrote:

    Fall Update - Mayday Declaration

    Here's an idea!

    We each get to make a comment, much like the specialist commentary on the 'Nature' feature article.

    But our comments would be short, and 'jr' terse; fifty to one hundred and fifty words, on whatever topic or general feeling we wish to zero in on. It might have something to do with seeing if the declaration has stood the test of five months, or it might be a detail on 'ozone', or the sulphur and nitrogen cycles, or it might be on an ommission in the Nature coverage - say Population, or Peak Oil, or Un reform, or governmental progress.

    In fact - it could be uniquely you - whatever you wwant to say - focused and short.

    I wrote about fifty words this morning on the bus to work, so this might serve as an example:

    Profane vs Sacred

    ~ because we do not understand, we consider many plants 'weeds.'

    ~ because someone has little, we consider them 'lower class.'

    ~ because we are fearful, we consider others 'foreign.'

    ~ because we are technical, we dominate the world.

    ~ unless we learn to trust ourselves and others, we will be replaced.
    --------------

    Then I was thinking of a few words on the declaration and also:

    The Human Volcano & Greenhouse Extinctions - A Worst Case Scenario

    ...
    ---------------------------

    'Rossglory' - possibly interested?

    'simon-swede' ??

    To All: Feel free to want in - just let us know.

    What do you all think? Any other ideas?

    Oh, and I think we should reference all the now embedded hyperlinks and links that are now below sentence structure, with square brackets [3] or some such device, like a scientific publication or wikipedia, with the reference all listed in order below. And below this, the signature box - numerical etc...

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 73. At 11:53pm on 25 Sep 2009, manysummits wrote:

    To ghostofsichuan:

    That's a serioiusly fine link! I'll have to find the time for this one.

    Thank you,

    Manysummits

    Complain about this comment

  • 74. At 00:30am on 26 Sep 2009, Jack Hughes wrote:

    We've already reached and passed Peak Eco-Babble.

    More and more people are just switching off and tuning out. Just picture Al Gore jumping the shark to get attention.

    Even Britain's LibDem leader Nick Clegg only puts disastrous climate catastrophe apocalypse meltdown as priority number 3 in his recent policy document. Behind re-organizing the Post Office.

    Complain about this comment

  • 75. At 01:02am on 26 Sep 2009, jr4412 wrote:

    Jack_Hughes_NZ #51, #69, #74.

    given that you appear perceptive and well-informed, I fail to understand that you're all hung up about climate change & CO2.

    what about other types of pollution, what about senseless warring, what about "our" world of exploitation & inequities...

    unconcerned?? "not my problem, mate"??


    manysummits #72.

    "Here's an idea! We each get to make a comment.."

    I think we need davblo2 to re-open the bulletin board for this since we're going OT on this blog.

    Complain about this comment

  • 76. At 08:59am on 26 Sep 2009, Jack Frost wrote:

    The infighting and bickering begins regarding CO2 emissions agreements, even without any proposed amended caps from this Decembers summit.

    "The European Commission is considering pursuing a legal fight with the EU's top court over management of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS)."


    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8273016.stm

    Complain about this comment

  • 77. At 09:14am on 26 Sep 2009, davblo2 wrote:

    jr4412 #75: "I think we need..."
    ...and to all "Mayday" group...

    The old versions of the Mayday Declaration are...
    The forum and
    The Wiki.

    Now there is also a rather "rough and ready" version as a blog
    Click on "Declaration" at the top or "Comment" at the bottom to go to the comments page.
    At the moment comments can be left without registering, but best to register soon (link on right under "Meta" on front page) so I can close it off to members only in case we get "spammed".

    All the best; davblo2

    Complain about this comment

  • 78. At 09:25am on 26 Sep 2009, CuckooToo wrote:

    @sensibleoldgrannie

    #67

    I think the debate rumble on until the alarmists are shown the error of their ways ;)

    Good to know somebody else thinks the debate isn't over yet though - I thought it was just me (at least on this forum!)

    @manysummits

    #67

    OK, my disagreements:

    1) Your view that CO2 driven climate change is wrong.

    2) A continuously growing population is a problem, as i have said here before, but, short of culling, how would you implement this? jr4412's taxation wouldn't work, how do you tax people with no money and is it morally correct to stop people having children. I think Mango's view is a little off, but he is right when he says jr4412 seems to advocating lots of children for the rich and none or one for the poor. I know that is not what he means to say, but that is the implication.

    3) Can't remember this one

    4) You seem to suggest only your band of merry man are able to understand the problems of the earth and the rest of us will follow your lead once we have been reeducated.

    I can't find your declaration, so the above is from memory - apologies

    I did notice only jr4412 responded to Mango's story on the temperature record debacle. I'd be interested in your comments, manysummits

    Complain about this comment

  • 79. At 09:33am on 26 Sep 2009, CuckooToo wrote:

    and then davblo2 posted a link!

    ok,

    3) there is no viable option to fossil fuels except nuclear at the moment. Again "There appear to be no viable alternatives to reducing .....our numbers"

    Would this be a final solution? Is your declaration tied in with Sierra Club?

    Sorry, manysummits, the only part of your declaration that i agree with is reform of the UN, just not in the way you think. The UN needs reforming because the UN has lost it's way

    Complain about this comment

  • 80. At 09:47am on 26 Sep 2009, CuckooToo wrote:

    i see the UN Environment Programme have just produced a report, signed off by Ban Ki-Moon, where they have grafted the CO2 record onto the "temperature record". Of course they had to use Manns discredited version of temperature and deny the existence of the Medieval Warming Period.

    I didn't read any further.

    Complain about this comment

  • 81. At 09:59am on 26 Sep 2009, CuckooToo wrote:

    it's also interesting that the BBC doesn't find the loss of the temperature record newsworthy

    tin foil hoodie anybody?

    Complain about this comment

  • 82. At 11:01am on 26 Sep 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    on population control

    it would seem John Holdren shared your view on population control:

    • Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
    • The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food;
    • Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
    • People who "contribute to social deterioration" (i.e. undesirables) "can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" -- in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
    • A transnational "Planetary Regime" should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans' lives -- using an armed international police force.


    from the book "Population, Resources, Environment", 1977

    http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/

    He now says he has changed his mind and doesn't hold these views anymore

    Complain about this comment

  • 83. At 11:13am on 26 Sep 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    The price for speaking out against AGW

    http://joannenova.com.au/2009/09/exile-for-non-believers/#more-3513

    World expert on Polar Bears, Mitchell Taylor, is told he can't go to the 2009 convention

    Hi Mitch,

    The world is a political place and for polar bears, more so now than ever before. I have no problem with dissenting views as long as they are supportable by logic, scientific reasoning, and the literature.

    I do believe, as do many PBSG members, that for the sake of polar bear conservation, views that run counter to human induced climate change are extremely unhelpful. In this vein, your positions and statements in the Manhattan Declaration, the Frontier Institute, and the Science and Public Policy Institute are inconsistent with positions taken by the PBSG.

    I too was not surprised by the members not endorsing an invitation.

    Nothing I heard had to do with your science on harvesting or your research on polar bears – it was the positions you’ve taken on global warming that brought opposition.

    Time will tell who is correct but the scientific literature is not on the side of those arguing against human induced climate change.

    I look forward to having someone else chair the PBSG.


    As far as I can recall the PBSG has never produced any evidence that AGW is real, but simply rely on argument by authority

    Complain about this comment

  • 84. At 11:31am on 26 Sep 2009, manysummits wrote:

    Shades of things to come - Calgary:

    'Bizarre' heat wave melts record

    http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/calsun/090924/canada/_bizarre__heat_wave_melts_record

    True, this is weather, but then a string of weather makes climate.

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 85. At 11:41am on 26 Sep 2009, manysummits wrote:

    The BBC must be one of the premiere news sites in the world?

    And the Richard Black Environment Forum and blog one of the highest visibility blogs in the English speaking world?

    So if there really was a disinformation campaign, funded through laundering of payments, then it would be surprising, would it not, if the denial campaign did not have the BBC targeted as a main objective?

    So who would these paid denialists be?
    ---------------------------------------

    I guess I'm going to have to switch gears and get this new book:

    "Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming", by

    "James Hoggan, co-founder of DeSmogBlog.com, is president of James Hoggan & Associates, an award-winning public relations firm in Canada. Hoggan is also chair of the David Suzuki Foundation and a trustee of the Dalai Lama Center for Peace and Education."

    http://www.fedpubs.com/subject/enviro/climate_coverup.htm
    ----------------------------------------------------------

    Especially as the David Suziki Foundation is in Canada, and David is our pre-eminent environmentalist, and has endorsed this book.

    Let me see, a phrase jumps to mind:

    Know Thine Enemy

    Let's Google it and see what we get?

    How's this?

    "The author of the 2,300-year-old treatise The Art of War, Chinese philosopher Sun Tzu, warned, "If you know yourself but not your enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat."

    http://www.antiwar.com/pena/?articleid=9755

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 86. At 11:41am on 26 Sep 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    and not true, at least according to Wiki:

    Calgary is a city of extremes, and temperatures have ranged anywhere from a record low of −45 °C (−49.0 °F) in 1893 to a record high of 36 °C (97 °F) in 1919.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calgary

    or, indeed, here:

    http://www.meteorologyclimate.com/extreme-temperature-records.htm

    CANADA
    Ottawa -38.9 °C 37.8 °C
    Toronto City -32.8 °C 40.6 °C
    Montreal -42 °C 37.6 °C
    Quebec City -36.7 °C 36.1 °C
    Halifax -29.4 °C 37.2 °C
    Saint John's -24 °C 31.5 °C
    Calgary -45 °C 36.1 °C

    The joys of alarmism

    Complain about this comment

  • 87. At 11:45am on 26 Sep 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    oops, strike that comment from the record - i mis-read!

    apologies

    Complain about this comment

  • 88. At 11:46am on 26 Sep 2009, manysummits wrote:

    Switching gears is a time-honored technique. As is going it alone.

    One of the lessons from the mountain-world that I learned early on was this - that if you have to have someone to go with, you are not really free.

    And so I was always ready to go myself, solo, and did very often, except on glaciers, and that would have come, given time.

    Flexibility, spontaneity of thought and action, an aversion to rules and dogma - these are attributes of artists everywherre, and a good warrior is an artist.

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 89. At 11:48am on 26 Sep 2009, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    There appears to be a lot of finger pointing at groups who are considered the reason for global warming/C02 levels increase etc. I have just read through the article by the BBC about deforestation and charcoal burning in Africa. The situation raises a lot of questions with obvious answers but sometimes the obvious has to be waved frantically to be noticed, because it can't be seen from lofty heights.

    Why do subsistence populations need fuel?
    What embedded social customs regulate the amount and type of fuel needed?
    What types of fuel are available for these groups of people?
    What fuels are the most easily available and the cheapest?
    What types of cooking systems are the cheapest?
    What types of cheap food are easily available for these groups?
    Which type of food take the longest to cook?
    Are there better alternative ways of preparation and cooking?
    Who is educating these people to get the best results with the least financial cost?
    Who is investing in providing cheap sustainable resources to these people?
    Who is exploiting these people?
    What job opportunities with pay (money to buy food) are available to these people?
    Who is going to give these people better alternative choices so that they don't get blamed and shamed?

    I am sorry to keep on but I feel these people are already living in nightmare conditions with disease, famine and external hostility always at their doorstep. I would hate to see these people blamed for something that is out of their power to control.

    Complain about this comment

  • 90. At 11:53am on 26 Sep 2009, manysummits wrote:

    Isn't it interesting how Mango has taken such an interest in Calgary, and this from someone who relishes the colonial food groups?

    Isn't it interesting how Mango is now Calgary's pre-eminent meteorologist, disputing not just the IPCC and every national academy of science on AGW, but now even a long term resident meteorologist from Calgary.

    And just when you thought it couldn't get any better?

    - Manysummts -

    Complain about this comment

  • 91. At 12:27pm on 26 Sep 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    Manysummits, I may have misread as stated in my post #86, but then you have to make your comment, which just makes me look further into the records for end of September in Calgary:

    Sep 20 3° 17° 0.15 cm -8° (1934) 29° (1922)
    Sep 21 3° 17° 0.13 cm -7° (1926) 29° (1938)
    Sep 22 3° 17° 0.13 cm -8° (2000) 29° (2009)
    Sep 23 3° 16° 0.13 cm -12° (1926) 33° (2009)
    Sep 24 2° 16° 0.13 cm -13° (1926) 32° (2001)
    Sep 25 2° 16° 0.13 cm -12° (1934) 31° (1922)
    Sep 26 2° 16° 0.13 cm -8° (1935) 30° (1952)
    Sep 27 2° 16° 0.13 cm -9° (1941) 32° (1967)
    Sep 28 2° 16° 0.13 cm -9° (1985) 29° (1890)
    Sep 29 2° 15° 0.1 cm -11° (1883) 29° (1888)
    Sep 30 2° 15° 0.1 cm -10° (1883) 30° (1920)

    http://weather.msn.com/daily_averages.aspx?&wealocations=wc%3aCAXX0054&weai=9&q=Calgary%2c+CAN&setunit=C

    So the temperature may be a record, but it's not that unusual to see high temperatures during late September in Calgary, even without nasty CO2 emissions

    Complain about this comment

  • 92. At 12:29pm on 26 Sep 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    BTW, manysummits, would you like to comment on the post regarding the loss of the temperature record raw data now? Afterall, if we don't have the data, how do we know it's a record?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/09/in_step_on_climate.html#P86175570

    ;)

    Complain about this comment

  • 93. At 4:01pm on 26 Sep 2009, jr4412 wrote:

    re. population (growth) control.

    MangoChutneyUKOK, CuckooToo, et al.

    you're all men, I suppose. do you really think that, given education, opportunity and choice, women want to be "baby factories"?

    give people security for their old age (ie. some kind of state pension), santiation and medical care (ie. lower child mortality), and the average family size shrinks -- no need for coercion.

    the only exception I can think of are the religious types who were given a mandate by their "god" to be "fruitful & multiply".

    on a different note: propose any idea and, like you, I'll be able to give a (decent) counter argument that shows up the "flaws". however, 8 out of 10 times that is not a productive way to develop solutions to a problem.

    Complain about this comment

  • 94. At 4:44pm on 26 Sep 2009, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    jr4412

    Some women blog here too. No woman wants to be a baby factory, baby production is PAINFUL and it is a situation that no man can fully appreciate until he has a go himself.

    Agree with statement 2, give a family hope and they will start to plan long term goals.

    Most 'religious' types would prefer to have a family size that they can afford to feed, cloth and get educated properly and would prefer not to be singled out as the 'problem.'



    Complain about this comment

  • 95. At 5:22pm on 26 Sep 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @jr4412 #93

    you're all men, I suppose. do you really think that, given education, opportunity and choice, women want to be "baby factories"?

    isn't population control about removing that choice, even if the means is not forced?

    Complain about this comment

  • 96. At 6:24pm on 26 Sep 2009, davblo2 wrote:

    sensibleoldgrannie #94: "...baby production is PAINFUL and it is a situation that no man can fully appreciate until he has a go himself"

    How do we do that?

    :-)

    All the best; davblo2

    Complain about this comment

  • 97. At 6:32pm on 26 Sep 2009, davblo2 wrote:

    MangoChutneyUKOK 95: "... population control..."

    We've been through alllll thiiiiiss befoooore.

    Infinite growth on a finite planet is not possible.
    =>Growth has to be finite.
    =>There is a limit to growth.
    =>Growth cannot exceed that limit.

    Ways to avoid exceeding that limit can be debated ad-inifinitum.
    That will not increase the limit.
    If we don't find a workable solution then Nature will when we pass that limit.

    Nature will not be any kinder than the "worst" human solution you can think of.

    Why don't you help and suggets a good solution instead of just criticising.

    Or do think it'll all sort itself out some how?
    if so, maybe you could explain how.

    All the best; davblo2

    Complain about this comment

  • 98. At 6:51pm on 26 Sep 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @davblo2

    I have said before on this forum that over population is a really big problem and I have said i do not have a solution, but population control smacks of elitism. The Sierra Club has clear policies on population control and you seem to be aligning yourselves with the Sierra Club

    I'm sorry, but population control is morally unacceptable to me

    If this "May Day Declaration" ever leads anywhere, please ensure you don't write it in my name

    Oh, and shouldn't your declarations read:

    1) Some people think Manmade climate change is already underway, and it is getting worse.
    2) There may already be too many people on Earth, and our numbers are increasing.
    3) Some people think There appear to be no viable alternatives to reducing both our fossil fuel emissions and our numbers.
    4) Some people think The Peoples of the World, when fully aware of the current state of affairs on this planet, will do the right thing."


    Not everybody thinks the same as you guys

    Complain about this comment

  • 99. At 6:52pm on 26 Sep 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    and btw let nature take her course both on population control and climate change

    Complain about this comment

  • 100. At 7:27pm on 26 Sep 2009, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    davblo,
    I could be graphic but your eyes would water at the thought. If men had to share the role of childbearing as opposed to child rearing, the population issue would go away within a year. ; o )

    Complain about this comment

  • 101. At 7:33pm on 26 Sep 2009, jr4412 wrote:

    sensibleoldgrannie #94.

    sorry about the 'men', hadn't thought of you when writing "et al".

    "Most 'religious' types would prefer to have a family size that they can afford to feed, cloth and get educated properly and would prefer not to be singled out as the 'problem.'"

    sure, but they are massive part of "the problem"; adherents of the Abrahamic religions (ie. Christians, Jews, Muslims) have a really poor track record regarding gender equality, not much choice and opportunity if you grow up as a woman in, say, a Hasidic or Wahabic community.


    MangoChutneyUKOK #95.

    I'll assume, for the moment, that you're not just some troll.

    "isn't population control about removing that choice, even if the means is not forced?"

    please re-read #93. the point I make is that women (more often than not) do not have choices, or opportunities, to follow their own path.

    your tag includes 'UK', so why don't you have a look, for example, at the rising number of so-called honour killings in the UK?
    [incomprehensible, how can killing a female who doesn't want to be meek chattel restore 'honour'???]

    #98.

    "If this "May Day Declaration" ever leads anywhere, please ensure you don't write it in my name"

    don't worry. ;-)

    Complain about this comment

  • 102. At 7:45pm on 26 Sep 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    going to the pub, but had to reply to jr before i go

    "If this "May Day Declaration" ever leads anywhere, please ensure you don't write it in my name"

    don't worry. ;-)


    lmao :)

    Complain about this comment

  • 103. At 8:11pm on 26 Sep 2009, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    jr4412.
    I get your drift now. As a woman, if I were forced into being a chattel I would use every means at my disposal to get away from the "family", disassociate with them completely, go into a refuge, change my name and appearance and make a life as far away from the lot of them as quickly as possible. I would make a secret plan first of how I would do this, and if I already had children, I would take them with me, but as a planned escape, and be determined not to weaken and go back, or contact any of them as this would be a fatal choice. In this country there are plenty of refuges for ethnic minority women. :o)

    Complain about this comment

  • 104. At 8:29pm on 26 Sep 2009, davblo2 wrote:

    MangoChutneyUKOK #99: "...and btw let nature take her course..."

    Just look: total world population
    ...and read...
    "It is interesting to note that at over 6.7 billion... World Population is approximately 3 times higher in 2009 than it was ... in 1939, despite the appalling loss of life in the World War II (an upper estimate of which is some 72 million)."

    72 million dead... no impact.

    Nature will do a lot "better" than that.

    Do you really want your children to have to see that?

    /davblo2

    Complain about this comment

  • 105. At 8:29pm on 26 Sep 2009, jr4412 wrote:

    sensibleoldgrannie #103.

    "In this country there are plenty of refuges for ... women."

    yes, telling, isn't it?!

    Complain about this comment

  • 106. At 9:30pm on 26 Sep 2009, manysummits wrote:

    To Mango:

    No, I wouldn't. In fact, I have no wish to discuss anything with you in the future.

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 107. At 10:00pm on 26 Sep 2009, manysummits wrote:

    Well, so far it's just the three of us again:

    I've just read the 'Planetray Boundary' feature article in Nature.

    Something to chew on:

    1) Rachel Carson + JFK = EPA United States.(early 1960's)

    2) 'Limits to Growth' (early 1970's)

    3) Viking and Mariner + Carl Sagan/Paul Crutzen et al = Nuclear Winter. (early 1980's)

    4) James Lovelock and 'Gaia' (ca 1979)

    5) Earth Systems Science (1980's)

    6) Rio Summit (early 1990's)

    7) AGW signal (early 2000's)

    8) Today:

    A Safe Operating Space for humanity
    'Nature': http://tinyurl.com/planetboundaries

    and: http://www.stockholmresilience.org/planetary-boundaries
    (full articlev - 36 pages)

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 108. At 10:01pm on 26 Sep 2009, manysummits wrote:

    More to chew on:

    Excerpts: (Nature feature)

    1)"The boundaries we propose represent a new approach to defining biophysical preconditions for human development. For the first time, we are trying to quantify the safe limits outside of which the Earth system cannot continue to function in a stable, Holocene-like state."

    2) "Anthropogenic climate change is now beyond dispute..."

    3) "The fossil record shows that the background extinction rate for marine life is 0.1–1 extinctions per million species per year; for mammals it is 0.2–0.5 extinctions per million species per year16. Today, the rate of extinction of species is estimated to be 100 to 1,000 times more than what could be considered natural. As with climate change, human activities are the main cause of the acceleration."

    4) "Records of Earth history show that large-scale ocean anoxic events occur when critical thresholds of phosphorus inflow to the oceans are crossed. This potentially explains past mass extinctions of marine life."

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 109. At 11:21pm on 26 Sep 2009, manysummits wrote:

    To davblo2 and jr4412:

    I was about to buy that book, "Climate Cover-Up", which documents the tactics and funding of the denial campaign. In reading over the chapter headings, and doing a little browsing - I started to laugh!

    No need to buy the book, the tactics revealed theirin are ones you and I are by now intimately familiar with, from long experience on this blogsite.

    Of course nothing can be proven, as it may be coincidence that the tactics are the same ones as outlined in the book, by an expert PR man.

    Just as the coincidence of man-made CO2 emmissions and global warming might not be related, without all that empirical evidence, of course.

    "What empirical evidence?" said Chicken Little, or was that Dr. Pangloss?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candide

    - Manysummits, "waiting for the miracle" -



    Complain about this comment

  • 110. At 00:55am on 27 Sep 2009, Jack Hughes wrote:

    Another day, another climate 'scare' from the meejah:
    Scientists begin earthworm count
    They haven't begun the count yet, but here we go:
    Scientists are to begin a survey to determine how many earthworms there are in Scotland.

    Researchers in Dundee and Aberdeen are hoping the results of the study will help them understand how climate change is affecting earthworm numbers.


    Yes the magic "C" word is there in the second paragraph.

    The study will also consider what other factors might influence worm numbers.

    I know it's only a quick summary but I just wonder how counting the worms is going to tell us anything except the number of worms.

    But wait - here is the expert:
    "If there is a reduction in the earthworm population there would be less natural drainage, and that combined with increased rainfall caused by climate change could result in more flooding."

    Looks like he's already biased his experiment. He's hoping for fewer worms. This is not science - its cargo cult science.

    A real scientist would just do the experiment instead of gossiping about stuff outside his own field.
    A real journo would report this afterwards - you know when there are some facts.

    Complain about this comment

  • 111. At 01:55am on 27 Sep 2009, manysummits wrote:

    That's strange? I'm a real scientist and I don't see anything strange at all! You, on the other hand, are - what was that again?

    Complain about this comment

  • 112. At 07:35am on 27 Sep 2009, simon-swede wrote:

    On September 26, World Wide Views on Global Warming (WWViews) carried out a "first-ever, globe-encompassing democratic deliberation in world history" (their words, not mine!).

    The main objective of WWViews is to give a broad sample of citizens from across the Earth the opportunity to influence global climate policy. Hype aside, the project has provided a platform for about 4 400 people in 38 countries around the world to "define and communicate their positions" on issues central to the UN Climate Change negotiations (COP15) in Copenhagen.

    For an overview see: http://www.wwviews.org/

    From that page you can go to the results section (see links in a box on the right hand side). The results section (which allows you to select different countries or regions, as well as make comparisons, etc).

    Here is a direct link to the results page, but not sure if it will work here (copy the address on to one line, no gaps):

    http://results.wwviews.org/new2/?cid=blank&gid=1631&ccid=blank&cgid=blank&question=blank&rec=0

    Complain about this comment

  • 113. At 07:49am on 27 Sep 2009, Jack Hughes wrote:

    I'm starting to feel sorry for the worm doctor. It's his boss' fault: "You've got to use the C-word if you want to get any funding".

    But it's going to be some survey. Worms don't experience 'global climate'. They feel the rain and the sun in their own little field. Has he tracked the local conditions in each of the 100 fields for 18 years ?

    And his assumption that 'climate change' will mean fewer worms. Any change ? Hotter " Colder ? Milder winters ? How about barbecue summers.

    I'll finish with some praise: at least he is going to the fields and doing the work - he's not just gazing at a computer simulation of worms, tinkering with the paraneters.

    Complain about this comment

  • 114. At 08:32am on 27 Sep 2009, simon-swede wrote:

    I begin to wonder if Jack ever bothers to read what he criticises, or whether the negativity just comes out automatically.

    In his last note (#113) he writes "Has he tracked the local conditions in each of the 100 fields for 18 years ?"

    Yet if he bothered to read the details, he would have seen:

    "During the early 1990s, scientists at SCRI carried out the first ever national earthworm survey of Scotland and this new research will revisit exactly the same sites at 100 farms across the country. This will enable the data to be compared with the baseline 1990s study and used to determine whether, for example, climate change is impacting upon these crucially important ecosystem engineers."

    Complain about this comment

  • 115. At 08:35am on 27 Sep 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @manysummits #106

    In response to my question asking if you would like to comment on the missing raw temperature data, meaning we are unable to reproduce the global temperature history from first principles, you replied:

    No, I wouldn't. In fact, I have no wish to discuss anything with you in the future.

    Why not?

    You claim to be a "real scientist" (#111), are you not concerned that the Met Office has managed to lose the most important record we have of historic temperatures?

    #107:

    You mention "AGW signal (2000's)

    This is the signature that is missing. Assuming your mention of this means it has been found, could you please point me in the right direction or are you just copy / pasting?

    Is there anybody out there who wishes to comment on the lost mat office data or are you all comfortable with this lack of care and loss of perhaps the most important record of global temperature?

    Complain about this comment

  • 116. At 08:58am on 27 Sep 2009, CuckooToo wrote:

    @manysummits

    I would also be interested in your thoughts (and anybody else for that matter) on the missing met office temperature record and the missing AGW signal.

    @Jack_Hughes_NZ

    #110

    Morning Jack

    In fairness to the worm people, readers of this blog will know that I am currently building a soil lab to test CO2, CH4, H20 in soil samples (hence the problem I am having with those "darling" newts!).

    Over 20 years ago a survey was carried out across the country to measure the amount of CO2 etc being released from the soil. A similar study was undertaken and to the surprise of the scientists, the soil was releasing CO2 at a much higher rate. The idea of this experiment is to find out what is causing the soil to do this. I believe the original conclusion was, the CO2 release was caused by man made emissions warming up the soil and causing more CO2 release, similar to warming oceans being unable to contain as much CO2 as a cooler ocean.

    This is a genuine attempt to try to understand why the soil is giving up it's CO2 and what contribution, if any, this is to AGW - which came first, temperature rise followed by CO2 release or CO2 release followed by temperature rise. If the ice cores are anything to go by, it should be temperature then CO2, but we will see.

    Getting back to the worm man, biota has a very important part to play in the release of CO2 and CH4 into the atmosphere by churning up the soil and their own excretary products, so a field study (pun intended) is very worthwhile, although I am guessing the worm man is using the C word to ensure this study happens. It's just part of the way academics get funding for their projects.

    Complain about this comment

  • 117. At 09:30am on 27 Sep 2009, Jack Hughes wrote:

    Morning UK bloggers - yes I did read it and thought how I would do a study like this.

    There will be many variables in this:
    * crops grown
    * livestock patterns
    * pesticide usage
    * species of worm
    * heavy tractors driving round compacting and vibrating
    * cultivation patterns (eg deep ploughing / not ploughing)
    * soil types
    * worm predators (eg birds)
    * worm diseases
    * rainfall
    * temperature
    * frosts

    As well as this they need a decent sampling regime - eg don't do the new samples next to the busy road and the old samples in the middle of the field.

    The weather factors are very specific to the actual field where the worms live - the worms do not know what the climate is doing at the north pole they just deal with the weather in their field. This is very important. Anyone who has ever spoken to a farmer will know that each field is good for some crops and animals and not so good for others. This can vary from year to year - eg some fields are heavy and good in a dry year but awful if there is too much rain.

    There could be many lags here - eg a warm year-before could mean lots of baby worms this year. Late frosts could be curtains for some species in spite of a warmer than average year.

    In one way I am excited about this study because it really is a chance for some real science: visit the fields and count the worms. But it looks like the researchers have already compromised their integrity by too much emphasis on one factor and reaching their conclusion before they even have any data.

    @Cuckoo2 - a simple experiment would be to breed worms in tanks and vary the "climate" in the tanks to see what happens - if anything. You would need to design the experiment so that it was statistically valid. Too many studies are banjaxed by poor sampling regimes so the results are meaningless.

    Complain about this comment

  • 118. At 10:18am on 27 Sep 2009, simon-swede wrote:

    #117

    "The study will also consider what other factors might influence worm numbers."

    Too bad they dared mention the "C" word, as that means by Jack's standards they can't do good science...

    Complain about this comment

  • 119. At 10:24am on 27 Sep 2009, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    Can you direct us all to a free, lively, entertaining, visual resouce explaining the carbon cycle in detail?

    Complain about this comment

  • 120. At 10:57am on 27 Sep 2009, simon-swede wrote:

    I haven't commented on the met office data stuff mainly because the links and claims made here were so obviously one-sided. That doesn't mean that some of the concerns are irrelevant, but I found it hard to work out what was really happening because of all the heresay and authors' own opinions being churned into the mix.

    There is what I consider to be a more balanced presentation of the McIntyre-Jones debate, which can be seen at:

    http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2009/08/mcintyre_versus_jones_climate_1.html#c100362

    (This link is open access and contains much of the information from which an article appeared in Nature - the Nature article itself is for subscribers only - "Climate data spat intensifies', Nature vol 460, page 787, 12 August 2009).

    Complain about this comment

  • 121. At 11:16am on 27 Sep 2009, JunkkMale wrote:

    119. At 10:24am on 27 Sep 2009, sensibleoldgrannie wrote:
    Can you direct us all to a free, lively, entertaining, visual resouce explaining the carbon cycle in detail?


    I think a time lapse of a free range, though fenced pig farm might serve. And be educational. Especially if no one brings home the bacon every so often. Though your average Gloucester Old Spot does not.. yet.. drive a Prius or need only 3 long haul hols a year, so the oil and 'leccy impacts might not be in there.

    In looking for a sample I found this which, while not really on topic, was worth sharing on a few counts, if not over breakfast: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yN8S6viF3Lw

    But, more in keeping with your question I did find this - http://epa.gov/climatechange/kids/carbon_cycle_version2.html - though the instructions to kick off were daunting. Where's an 8 year old when you need one?

    Maybe this 'un?: http://www.ebex21.co.nz/enlargement.asp

    Complain about this comment

  • 122. At 11:16am on 27 Sep 2009, simon-swede wrote:

    #119

    There are many graphics available which attempt to illustrate the carbon cycle (whether or not they are lively or entertaining, I leave to you). The challenge is to make the illustration (which requires simplification), without leaving out key details (which makes it harder to show in a graphic).

    Here are a couple of examples:

    http://www.grida.no/publications/vg/climate/page/3066.aspx

    http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/carbon_cycle


    More generally, UNEP have made a number of other climate-related graphics available, see:

    http://maps.grida.no/go/collection/vital-climate-change-graphics-update


    But as I said earlier, there are many examples available from many different sources. Probably no one of them is perfect, and no doubt they all have different positive and negative aspects.

    Complain about this comment

  • 123. At 11:34am on 27 Sep 2009, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    Jack-Hughes-NZ,
    I agree to 117 (after reading about wormiculture) and I found your subtle comment amusing.
    This would be a fun study for schools around the country.
    The worm scientists could set out the conditions for the experiment including time of year.
    The results could be posted online to the worm scientists and they could extrapolate the data to tell us what centuries of gardeners already know.
    The experiment could also determine how widespread the flat worm invasion is. The genetic scientists could then develop a flat worm sterilization program to prevent the land being overrun with flatworms (which apparently eventually reach a state of equilibrium anyway)

    Complain about this comment

  • 124. At 11:37am on 27 Sep 2009, simon-swede wrote:

    Correction to #120

    The correct link is:

    http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2009/08/mcintyre_versus_jones_climate_1.html

    This takes you to the start of the section, where there is an overview of the issues.

    The link I gave earlier takes you into the comments section - sorry. (But if you do go there, just scroll up to get to the start...).

    Complain about this comment

  • 125. At 11:49am on 27 Sep 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @simon-swede

    this comment seems a better way of tackling

    http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2009/08/mcintyre_versus_jones_climate_1.html#comment-99550

    What many of us find impossible to understand is the following.

    The future of the human race on earth is at stake. Drastic measures are essential. There are however many influential skeptics who are not convinced of this, their main argument is that the studies on which the above assertions are based are impossible to verify, because the data and the algorithms are being kept secret.

    Professor Jones, along with Mann, Thompson, and others has done the work, has generated studies, and it is all totally securely based. If we had access to the raw data and the code, we could see that the evidence is overwhelming, the results reproducible. We would, if we came to accept this, immediately swing behind Copenhagen and Kyoto. Because we would see that the studies were right, there is no alternative, we must act now to save humanity.

    Yet, when offered this simple method of silencing all objections, and compelling agreement on so vital an issue, Jones, Mann, Thompson and others decline to reveal the totally convincing evidence they have. Thus allowing skepticism to flourish, and the future of humanity to be threatened.

    Why?

    Complain about this comment

  • 126. At 12:03pm on 27 Sep 2009, davblo2 wrote:

    simon-swede 112: "World Wide Views on Global Warming"

    Thanks for the link. That's a very well presented site.

    On the results page...results from WWViews it's possible (as you say) to compare the results from different countries.

    It was interesting to compare Sweden and the UK.
    Pretty well throughout the range of questions the Swedish view was more "perceived awareness", more "concern" and more "commitment to action"; they also showed a harder line on developing nations in terms of them taking more responsibility for cut-backs etc.

    One of the biggest differences I noticed was in the willingness to accept increased prices for fossil fuels, UK being much less in favour.

    All the best; davblo2

    Complain about this comment

  • 127. At 12:16pm on 27 Sep 2009, davblo2 wrote:

    Concerning the worm report I think you have to look carefully to see how the article is written. It is written by the BBC who (as usual) are trying to entertain people and make an interesting story (about earth worms for goodness sake).

    So this isn't a scientific presentation.

    There are only three paragraphs shown as actual quotes from the "scientists". The first two talk in general about different types of worm. The final paragraph (with the C word) looks like it could easily have been in answer to a journalists question along the lines of "What would be the effect of a change in earthworm population in the light of current concerns about climate change". ie a leading question.

    Unless you find the scientists actual write up of their planned project then we are just peering through a journalistic haze and have to use our common sense before condemning the project.

    All the best; davblo2


    Complain about this comment

  • 128. At 12:54pm on 27 Sep 2009, simon-swede wrote:

    #121 Junkkmale

    Interesting video link! :-)

    Complain about this comment

  • 129. At 12:58pm on 27 Sep 2009, simon-swede wrote:

    #126 Davblo2

    Thanks. I found some of the comparisons intriguing too. For example, there were more differences on some issues than I expected between Sweden (where I live now) and the Netherlands (where I lived previously).

    Complain about this comment

  • 130. At 4:20pm on 27 Sep 2009, manysummits wrote:

    119. At 10:24am on 27 Sep 2009, sensibleoldgrannie wrote:
    Can you direct us all to a free, lively, entertaining, visual resouce explaining the carbon cycle in detail?

    Simon-swede has presented some links, so I thought to 'pass on down' another thought on carbon cycles:

    It might be a good idea initially to recognize that there appear to be two fundamental carbon cycles, a short term one, and a long term one.

    If you type in "carbon cycle" in Wikipedia, you will be introduced to both the short term carbon cycle and the long term cycle, but I think it is not made clear enough the tremendous differences between the two.

    As far as I am aware, the only effective carbon removal cycle is the long term one, where carbon is sequestered in rocks, and returned to the short term cycle only very slowly, on geologic timescales, as subduction zones return carbon to the short term processes via volcanic activity. (eg the 'Pacific Ring of Fire')

    The short term processes are the ones we commonly 'worry about' in the sense of climate.

    The planet can handle any amount of CO2 we throw at it - "No Problemo."

    But the planet may not appreciate having things thrown at it, and will eliminate a great many species, including us, as it patiently sequesters the excess CO2. It has done this repeatedly in the past. (See Deccan Traps and Siberian Traps, or the K-T and Permian extinction events)

    "Greenhouse Extinctions" is a term we will all increasingly come to know and fear in the near future.

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 131. At 4:29pm on 27 Sep 2009, manysummits wrote:

    Back to China

    This morning Eric Margolis was writing on China's upcoming 60th anniversary of the birth of the "Peoples Republic of China." (Oct 1)

    'The Great Helmsman', Mao Zedong, is featured, an enigmatic figure, as are all 'doers', who was at once "poet, writer, historian and superb military strategist", who "united China...and restored its pride."

    Mr. Margolis credits Zhou Enlai with curbing some of Mao's excesses, and of engineering into power Deng Xiaoping, whom he considers "one of the twentieth century's greatest men."

    I should be interested to see if 'ghostofsichuan' agrees with this brief assessmeent?

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 132. At 4:54pm on 27 Sep 2009, manysummits wrote:

    "Planetary Boundaries:
    Exploring the safe operating space for humanity"


    from "The Stockholm Resilience Center", and by:

    Johan Rockström1,2*, Will Steffen1,3, Kevin Noone1,4, Åsa Persson1,2, F. Stuart Chapin, III5, Eric F. Lambin6, Timothy M. Lenton7, Marten Scheffer8, Carl Folke1,9, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber10,11, Björn Nykvist1,2, Cynthia A. de Wit4, Terry Hughes12, Sander van der
    Leeuw13, Henning Rodhe14, Sverker Sörlin1,15, Peter K. Snyder16, Robert Costanza1,17, Uno Svedin1, Malin Falkenmark1,18, Louise Karlberg1,2, Robert W. Corell19, Victoria J. Fabry20, James Hansen21, Brian Walker1,22 Diana Liverman23, Katherine Richardson24, Paul Crutzen25, Jonathan A. Foley26

    http://www.stockholmresilience.org/planetary-boundaries
    --------------------

    I have highlighted two co-authors whom I am familiar with.

    This is the original article upon which is based the much abbreviated 'Nature' feature article discussed at some length in previous posts.

    The full length article cited in this post is I think, beautifully written and understandable, which after all, is the same thing. I highly recommend this to all, and in particular to jr4412 and davblo2.

    I was looking for an author with first name 'simon' but did not find it?

    It seems to me this is a carry-forward of our thinking on 'Limits to Growth', which was first brought to light in the early seventies, and which was of course preceeded by 'many shoulders.'

    It is in a sense, what davblo2 might call "A Message of Hope", in that we are finally coming to quantitative grips with the problems which beset us.

    For me - this bold step into the future is our "Fall Update - Mayday Declaration."

    No need to reinvent the wheel.

    Of course, population is not given billing as a planetary boundary. I might write to the lead author and ask why it wasn't, or perhaps 'simon-swede' might give us his thoughts?

    I thought to include a brief excerpt from this 36 page article, which is the essence of the whole thing:

    "The Earth has entered a new epoch, the Anthropocene, where humans
    constitute the dominant driver of change to the Earth System (Crutzen 2002; Steffen et al.2007). The exponential growth of human activities is raising concern that further pressure on the Earth System could destabilise critical biophysical systems and trigger abrupt or irreversible environmental changes that would be deleterious or even catastrophic for human well-being. This is a profound dilemma, because the predominant paradigm of social and economic development remains largely oblivious to the risk of human-induced environmental
    disasters at continental to planetary scales (Stern 2007)."

    - Manysummits -

    PS: I wonder how to express my gratitude to the authors of this report, to the many who contributed both directly and indirectly to it?

    Perhaps "Thank You" is a start.

    Complain about this comment

  • 133. At 5:26pm on 27 Sep 2009, manysummits wrote:

    I was just reading the "Supplementary Information" section of the "Planetary Boundaries" article from Stockholm, and I see that the Club of Rome's 1972 work is explicitly credited and discussed. One of the 'Nature' 'expert' commentaries expressed the thought that the lead author of the Stockholm article should have credited previous work, such as the Club of Rome and "Limits to Growth". Does this mean the 'expert' has failed to read the Supplementary Information?

    I also see that critical transitions and mathematical 'bifurcations' are a part of the 'Supplementary' discussion. This harkens back to an article which 'ghostofsichuan' presented to us in a previous 'link', whose full title is:

    "Early-warning signals for critical transitions", by Marten Scheffer et all, 'Nature'; vol 461; 3 September 2009; pp. 53-59.
    ----------------------------------------------------

    I should like now to comment on the denialists on this blog.

    'Wunarik', from Sudanese Africa, told me just the other day that he had been reading this blog again, and that he thought the denialists were not to be taken too seriously, as there were bound to be many readers of this website who were well able to distinguish between responsible and irresponsible, between truth and fiction or obfuscation.

    I believe he is right.

    - Manysummits -


    Complain about this comment

  • 134. At 7:06pm on 27 Sep 2009, jr4412 wrote:

    manysummits #132.

    "..this bold step into the future is our "Fall Update - Mayday Declaration." No need to reinvent the wheel."

    so, list of signatures appended, that's it?

    Complain about this comment

  • 135. At 7:14pm on 27 Sep 2009, davblo2 wrote:

    "No need to reinvent the wheel."

    ...need something to make them go round...

    Complain about this comment

  • 136. At 7:43pm on 27 Sep 2009, Jack Frost wrote:

    Oh dear, oh dear. The world leaders really know how to spend billions on tackling climate change, without even checking the facts.

    It seems a climate graph used in a UN Climate report published to coincide with the summit in New York attended by President Obama and other world leaders, was not from an august team of scientists working around the clock, but rather Wikipedia.

    Perhaps equally surprising was the revelation that the graph’s author was not a climatologist, but rather an obscure Norwegian ecologist, Hanno Sandvik, who claimed no expertise regarding the data used in his graph. Misidentified in the UN report as “Hanno,” Sandvik politely distanced himself from the graph as the story unfolded. The UN report authors, meanwhile, had given a scientist they had never met or heard of the appearance of scientific legitimacy.

    Was copying and pasting a Wikipedia graph drawn by a non-climatologist the best that the United Nations, with a staff of hundreds working on climate change using an annual budget in the hundreds of million dollars, could do? Evidently, it was. Sandvik himself appeared surprised.

    ‘My’ graph has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal since I am not a climatologist,” he wrote in an e-mail to TalkingAboutTheWeather.com. “The graph has been drawn using data that have undergone peer-review. That means that the graph is ‘mine’ only in a very restricted sense, viz. that I have drawn it – the underlying data [are] not mine, as the source provided clearly indicates. I have no qualification to judge whether the underlying data are correct or erroneous, and have never pretended to be able to do so."

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/27/more-on-the-hanno-wikipedia-graph-in-the-un-climate-report/

    Complain about this comment

  • 137. At 9:42pm on 27 Sep 2009, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    post 136
    Now you have spotted a leak in the sieve, does that mean it doesn't hold water?

    Complain about this comment

  • 138. At 10:09pm on 27 Sep 2009, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    post 127
    A hungry chick never refuses worms

    Complain about this comment

  • 139. At 01:43am on 28 Sep 2009, manysummits wrote:

    To jr4412 & davblo2:

    Just my opinion - awaiting yours?

    The central idea is to publish the declaration on its own on the web, with a paid host and server, and perhaps its own domain name for five years.

    Secondary ideas were:

    1) To have a 'signature box' at the end.

    2) To offer thoughts from five months of 'perspectice'.

    3) With this new 'Planetary Boundary' article, and its abbreviated 'feature' status in 'Nature', to add a few words on this, including the ommission of a few parameters - population; UN and political reform; psychology of denial; etc...

    4) To remove all links in the body of the declaration to a 'reference' section at the end of the declaration and 'fall update', numbered as in a scientific publication.

    5) And any other suggestions you or I may think of.

    I certainly can't envision a prolonged bout of back and forth such as the original declaration entailed - can you?

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 140. At 01:48am on 28 Sep 2009, Jack Hughes wrote:

    Let's all hope the study doesn't ignore the Medieval Worm Period. ;-)

    Complain about this comment

  • 141. At 08:04am on 28 Sep 2009, freesasha wrote:

    Frankly, I feel mildly awkward throwing in a cent or two to this comment frenzy, not unlike how I might feel eavesdropping on a live conversation and suddenly bursting into the dialogue as if I were every bit a legitimate member of the original group.

    I’ve spent the better part of the past 2 days reading through page after page of comments left largely by a core 4 or 5 people, regardless of whatever subject matter Richard Black has chosen to focus on in a particular article. I genuinely find each one of you absolutely fascinating, and even more so, the ongoing dynamic of the forum. The most recent article elicited some particularly interesting conversations, parts of which, I feel rather compelled to respond to…

    #99 MangoChutneyUKOK:
    “and btw let nature take her course both on population control and climate change”

    It seems as if people have completely failed to recognize that nature has and is, quite aggressively, attempting to do just that. How exactly should AIDS be explained? Natural disasters? Plagues? Epidemics? Cancer? Or how about the most overlooked one—aging. Nearly every single “crisis” or “threat” to society of this implied nature is nothing more than a biological, ecological, chemical, and altogether natural phenomenon of the [global] ecosystem attempting to right what is wrong.

    From a purely ecological standpoint, the characteristics of human society presents some pretty unfortunate roadblocks in nature’s processes of self-correction. Our personal relationships, capacities for empathy and sympathy, emotional attachments, etc make it extremely difficult, if not impossible to let nature take its course, so to speak, on fellow members of our species. We consider it rather unethical to, say, cease all cancer treatments, or to systematically isolate all individuals with AIDS to rule out potential for infecting others while also denying medical attention to those already suffering from the disease. From an absolutely environmental standpoint, with complete disregard for all things culturally accepted as “ethical” or “humane,” such strategies are, frankly, undeniably appropriate in maintaining ecosystem integrity, functionality, and balance* (*as understood in the ecological sense that the environment is in a state of constant flux). However, human culture has evolved in ways that unofficially forbids such actions, regardless of the environmentally virtuous intentions behind them.

    It is naïve to say nature will work itself out in the end when human civilization has butchered the Earth’s ability to function as the amazingly complex environmental machine it is. The environment is tough, and will carry on as it must; but don’t be fooled into believing this durability overpowers the incomparable fragility of ecosystems. Nature will persist and adapt in the end, but rest assured we humans won’t be along for the ride. The environment has no responsibility to make certain its most destructive, self-serving species is looked after. That one’s on us.


    Switching gears……

    Sensibleoldgrannie #103:

    Your response to jr4412 truly fascinates me. I’m trying to wrap my head around your comment about the “planned escape” oppressed and abused women (and apparently their children as well) should be mapping out and executing. I absolutely refuse to believe you genuinely feel this is in any way realistic for the majority of women in such situations. These are people who have been emotionally, mentally, and more often than not, physically abused and beaten down. Furthermore, many simply do not have the means to locate their nearest refuge center, let alone devise a way to get there safely. And in the event a woman knows where she can take refuge, the odds of her escaping her current situation are sketchy, at best. Aside from the physical hurdles, who’s to say these women don’t genuinely love their abusers (albeit in an entirely unhealthy way), or that they don’t suffer from utterly debilitating fear for their lives if they attempt to flee? Or perhaps some of these women have become so emotionally numb to or accepting of their situations that they don’t see themselves as having any other alternatives?

    The scenario you presented truly is a best-case-scenario of a woman-turned-chattel. In theory, you should be right—if the world must operate in such a way that women find themselves in such heart wrenching circumstances, then we should be able to take solace in knowing that such a planned escape is a viable option for all those condemned to such misogynistic circumstances. Unfortunately, such successes seem to be reserved for a lucky minority—one that shrinks dramatically in far too many cultures and regions across the globe.

    I should ask what country you were referring to when you wrote:
    “In this country there are plenty of refuges for ethnic minority women…”

    As I am new to this blog’s commenting community, I am still trying to figure out the general geographical demographics of its serial users =)



    There is much more I wish to comment on, but this post is far too long already, and extending it any further would probably sway anyone from reading it…so for now, that is all!

    -freesasha

    Complain about this comment

  • 142. At 08:12am on 28 Sep 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    True colours?

    “The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
    The real enemy then, is humanity itself."

    “This is the way we are setting the scene for mankind’s encounter with the planet. The opposition between the two ideologies that have dominated the 20th century has collapsed, forming their own vacuum and leaving nothing but crass materialism.

    It is a law of Nature that any vacuum will be filled and therefore eliminated unless this is physically prevented. “Nature,” as the saying goes, “abhors a vacuum.” And people, as children of Nature, can only feel uncomfortable, even though they may not recognize that they are living in a vacuum. How then is the vacuum to be eliminated?

    It would seem that humans need a common motivation, namely a common adversary, to organize and act together in the vacuum; such a motivation must be found to bring the divided nations together to face an outside enemy, either a real one or else one invented for the purpose.

    New enemies therefore have to be identified.
    New strategies imagined, new weapons devised.

    The common enemy of humanity is man."


    Club of Rome

    Complain about this comment

  • 143. At 08:27am on 28 Sep 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @freesasha #141

    You take my post out of context.

    Manysummits etc were talking about population control, which i think is morally unacceptable.

    Letting nature take her course on climate change is there is no proof that CO2 drives climate.

    Complain about this comment

  • 144. At 08:29am on 28 Sep 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    members of the club of rome according to ABC news:

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/06/05/1942343.htm

    Dr Keith Suter shares Club of Rome membership with 100 other people including Bill Gates, Al Gore and Jimmy Carter

    Complain about this comment

  • 145. At 08:52am on 28 Sep 2009, davblo2 wrote:

    freesasha #141: "Frankly, I feel mildly awkward..."

    Hi freesasha; no need to feel awkward; thanks for your well thought out comments.

    I'm short of time at the moment, otherwise I'd write a better reply.

    So for now I'll just say welcome.

    All the best; davblo2


    Complain about this comment

  • 146. At 08:56am on 28 Sep 2009, davblo2 wrote:

    MangoChutneyUKOK #143: "Manysummits etc were talking about population control"

    Wrong Mango.

    We talk primarily about the problem of the "population explosion".

    We just need people to accept that it is a problem first.

    /davblo2

    Complain about this comment

  • 147. At 09:35am on 28 Sep 2009, Jack Frost wrote:

    When is a hockey stick, not a hockey stick?

    When Hadley's Climate Research Unit (CRU) archive data illustrates the most extreme example of scientific cherry-picking ever seen, then gets debunked.

    All of the sudden, it isn’t the “hottest period in 2000 years” anymore.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/27/quote-of-the-week-20-ding-dong-the-stick-is-dead/

    Complain about this comment

  • 148. At 10:06am on 28 Sep 2009, jr4412 wrote:

    freesasha #141.

    "..what country.."

    UK.

    Complain about this comment

  • 149. At 11:51am on 28 Sep 2009, manysummits wrote:

    To freesasha #42:

    Welcome to 'the blog', Richard Black's virtual campfire!

    I see we're all falling over each other to say Hi - which is just fine.

    In case you're wondering what this 'Mayday Declaration' is, I thought I'd post a link to it: (please see post #190 in the link, which is the last post on that thread)
    --------------------------

    190. At 11:45am on 01 May 2009, manysummits wrote:
    At last, May 1, 2009 and - concensus!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/04/of_whalemeat_and_human_rights.html#comments
    ----------------------------------

    The three of us who ended up writing it were jr4412, davblo2, and myself.

    We are wondering whether to add a 'Fall Update', when simon-swede made us aware of the new 'Nature' report:

    "A safe operating space for humanity" (vol 461; 24 September 2009; pp. 472-475; )plus seven 'expert' comments)

    http://tinyurl.com/planetboundaries
    -----------

    This is free on the internet, and is an abbreviated article from a 36 page article, which also has a 22 page Supplementary Information section, both of which are well worth reading I believe, and were written from the "Stockholm Resilience Center", with contributors and co-authors far and wide. Here is the link:

    http://www.stockholmresilience.org/planetary-boundaries
    ---------------

    That's a lot of potential reading - essentially a 'Limits to Growth' and Gaia/Earth System's Science update, including politics and population if you include our Mayday Declaration.

    It's almost surreal, the way you 'popped in' at this critical juncture!!

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 150. At 1:08pm on 28 Sep 2009, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    141
    UK
    I know!
    This is an unquantifiable factor as to why there is a population explosion.
    It is unquantifiable because of the tremendous secrecy surrounding the issue.
    The police are the main contact and even they are sworn to secrecy.
    The 'cure' is almost as bad as the 'disease' for about one year, partially due to post traumatic stress disorder.

    How come you have so much knowledge about it?

    Complain about this comment

  • 151. At 1:30pm on 28 Sep 2009, simon-swede wrote:

    freesasha at #141

    Great post and welcome!

    Complain about this comment

  • 152. At 1:36pm on 28 Sep 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    From your declaration:

    It is recognized that primary responsibility for the reduction of the world population will likely fall to the 'developing world', as the population curve of the 'developed world' is already flat or negative.

    I accept my education isn't quite as extensive as yours, but that reads "population control" to me and since jr4122 refers to "population (growth) control." I'm guessing I am not far off the subject

    Complain about this comment

  • 153. At 1:36pm on 28 Sep 2009, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    manysummits et al
    I had huge reservations in writing about this subject for many reasons. Oh well it is out now, it had better be included in manysummits list of things to think about and deal with.

    Complain about this comment

  • 154. At 1:42pm on 28 Sep 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @colonelAgentEnigma #147

    you're wasting your time posting links to "deniers", since few posters here will follow the link, perhaps because it doesn't reinforce their dogma.

    McIntyre has proved time and again that Hockey Stick is broken and current temperatures are not unique, there is no proof that CO2 is capable of raising the temperature significantly and there is still the question of the missing AGW signature as claimed by the IPCC for the last 20 years, but still they insist AGW is real

    Complain about this comment

  • 155. At 1:43pm on 28 Sep 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    oh! and none of them are concerned that the raw temperature record is missing, so can't be reproduced - trust me, i'm a climate scientist!

    Complain about this comment

  • 156. At 3:25pm on 28 Sep 2009, jr4412 wrote:

    MangoChutneyUKOK #152.

    "From your declaration: It is recognized that primary responsibility for the reduction of the world population will likely fall to the 'developing world', as the population curve of the 'developed world' is already flat or negative."

    I'm not too worked up about population numbers but the above is not contentious, surely?!

    you do fail to mention that "..since jr4122 refers to 'population (growth) control.'.." is in response to your earlier posts (#41, #49, etc.).

    so, either your command of the English language is even poorer than mine (and for me, English is a second language), or, more likely, you do not read properly nor retain what you've read..

    or, perhaps, you are just a troll?? (see #95 and #101).

    Complain about this comment

  • 157. At 4:13pm on 28 Sep 2009, davblo2 wrote:

    MangoChutneyUKOK #155: "trust me, i'm a climate scientist!"

    Are you?

    /davblo2

    Complain about this comment

  • 158. At 4:38pm on 28 Sep 2009, RolandGross wrote:

    been away a few days and missed some thrilling exchanges

    #154 mango

    indeed for me following these links has always been a waste of time (especially to the same old same old comments of the likes of mcintyre et al) and my time is fairly precious to me. you guys spend your time trawling through the denialosphere and i'll pick up anything interesting when it gets into the scientific press.......not seen anything recently though.

    wrt the population issue....clearly it is an issue that will have to be faced at some stage but there are so many other things that can be done first before heading down the 'modest proposal' (swift) route.

    Complain about this comment

  • 159. At 6:21pm on 28 Sep 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    if only we all could have the benefits of a good education and see the world through privileged eyes

    i find it interesting that you guys can berate me for my lack of good english and not pass comment on manusummits freely admitting he doesn't understand anything about how co2 warms the earths atmosphere whilst he lectures the rest of on why co2 emissions are bad

    however you look at it, what you are saying on population is about controlling population growth. The club of rome and sierra club has views on this too

    jr4412 asks if your view is contentious and, given you want to prevent developing countries from having too many children, i would say yes and how do you tax people for having too many children, when they have little income anyway?

    davblo2 states "are you?" when I say "oh! and none of them are concerned that the raw temperature record is missing, so can't be reproduced - trust me, i'm a climate scientist!"

    of course i'm not, i was being sarcastic. Perhaps my english lets me down again, but essentially the climate scientists are asking us to trust them, because the data has been lost - i think you knew what i meant

    rolandgoss tells us he hasn't seen anything interesting in the scientific press recently. Surely the loss of the temperature raw data was there? Or is the lack of ability to reproduce the historic temperature record not of interest to the scientific press?

    a question none of you seem to want to address

    Complain about this comment

  • 160. At 6:24pm on 28 Sep 2009, davblo2 wrote:

    manysummits #139: "Just my opinion - awaiting yours?"
    jr4412 and all...

    The best I could manage to date (as I mentioned in my #77) is to set up the declaration as a blog post The Mayday Declaration.

    It is, as you suggest, on a paid-up server (actually one year at a time).

    Click on "Declaration" and it takes you here, where there is a comments box at the bottom which should suffice for anyone to sign up if they wish.

    Any comments and requests for changes or additions would probably be best written there rather than clutter up Richard's blog any more.

    All the best; davblo2

    Complain about this comment

  • 161. At 7:01pm on 28 Sep 2009, jr4412 wrote:

    MangoChutneyUKOK #159.

    so far all you've done is "snipe" and put down ideas proposed by others (not difficult).

    how about you advance constructive opinions/ideas of your own?

    what should "we" say to those about to meet in Copenhagen?


    re. lost data -- should never happen but did, so, what can be done about it?

    Complain about this comment

  • 162. At 7:33pm on 28 Sep 2009, freesasha wrote:

    quick question before I post again...all of this talk about hockey sticks...is that a reference to j-curves? I'm a bit lost...I don't want to make any assumptions and completely misinterpret someone's post.

    Complain about this comment

  • 163. At 7:37pm on 28 Sep 2009, freesasha wrote:

    ...and a many thanks to all of you who so warmly welcomed me =)

    Complain about this comment

  • 164. At 7:47pm on 28 Sep 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @freesasha # 162

    hockey sticks:

    Pro-AGW version:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/02/dummies-guide-to-the-latest-hockey-stick-controversy/

    Anti-AGW version:

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html

    make up your own mind

    Complain about this comment

  • 165. At 8:02pm on 28 Sep 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @jr4412 #161

    so far all you've done is "snipe" and put down ideas proposed by others (not difficult).

    Not true, i have tried to explain why CO2 cannot be the main driver of climate and why the missing anthropgenic global warming is so important. Obviously my poor english has let me down again :(

    how about you advance constructive opinions/ideas of your own?

    I already have. By showing the invalidity of the IPCC's belief that AGW will leave a unique signature, which, after 20 years of searching, is still missing in inaction. I know simon will disagree, but this either means the climate models are wrong or the idea that CO2 drives climate is wrong.

    I have tried to explain is unable to warm the earth to any significant degree (hence mansummits confirmation that he didn't understand the science behind CO2)

    what should "we" say to those about to meet in Copenhagen?

    As i've said many times, we should say forget about CO2 being the driver of climate change and instead concentrate on more important things such as deforestation, land change, the continuing concreting over of good earth, giving the thirsty a supply of fresh water, perhaps try to find away to increase food production etc

    re. lost data -- should never happen but did, so, what can be done about it?

    there is nothing we can do. It is ridiculous that the CRU lost the data in the first place. Now we have absolutely nothing to show if temperatures have risen or not, the proxies are clearly suspect, so all we have left are adjusted data.

    it wouldn't surprise me if the missing data turned up after Copenhagen (joke)

    Complain about this comment

  • 166. At 8:13pm on 28 Sep 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @freesasha

    here's another link on the hockey stick from the sceptic camp

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/27/quote-of-the-week-20-ding-dong-the-stick-is-dead/

    Could i also suggest you read www.climatedebatedaily.com, along the side you will find useful links to pro and anti AGW arguments.

    Particularly good are www.realclimate.com (although they are the authors of the hockey stick and yes i do read them), www.climateaudit.com (the people who first found the errors in the hockey stick) and www.wattsupwiththat.com (author of www.surfacestations.org which exposes the poor siting etc of the weather stations)

    apologies if you knew all this before and welcome!

    Complain about this comment

  • 167. At 9:05pm on 28 Sep 2009, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    freesasha,
    Hello and welcome : o )
    Sorry if I appeared abrupt but I did not know how to respond at the time, as I still find it a difficult subject.
    Your observations were EXTREMELY ACCURATE but there is help in Britain because even some British women are subject to awful abuse.
    It would be brilliant if more funding was available to help Womans Aid who do their best to get women out of the impossible situations that they find themselves in.
    Womans Aid an underfunded organisation, who assist women who chose to get away from their violent partners. There is an ethnic minority version of Womans Aid and I expect there would be contact advice available at a local library, the health clinic, the doctors surgery or on-line. Woman in Britain should feel that there is an opportunity for them to escape an impossible situation unless they are here illegally.(I don't know what the best option is for those women).
    Having babies should be thoroughly agreed by both partners and being forced to breed is slavery.
    If a great deal more was done to support women in the world then the population 'problem' would gradually ease.

    Complain about this comment

  • 168. At 9:27pm on 28 Sep 2009, ghostofsichuan wrote:

    manysummits:

    On your question. Mao, Chou and Deng. Mao had between 30 and 50 million citizens killed when he took over, started the Cultural Revolution and spent the later years in a big bed with young girls, a revolutionary that did not govern well....Chou understood engagement with outside world....victim of Cultural Revolution...Deng was part of decision to send troops into Tiananmen Square...push for a modern China..most capable politician. All three are important and in the odd way of world events created the China of today. Uncertain and difficult times and events that took on life of their own....we all participate even when we do not participate. Mao once offered to send 10 million Chinese women to the US, but Kissinger turned down the offer...maybe a mistake...maybe not.

    need to check out for awhile. Helping young monk with paper on Meaning of Renunciation in the Ordination Ceremony for monks in the Thai Forest Monk Tradition. Abbot also has (no)things for me to do. Good luck.
    Thoughts: sex and knowledge have caused more sorrow than joy in this world.

    Complain about this comment

  • 169. At 10:39pm on 28 Sep 2009, Chris in Baildon wrote:

    A few years ago I started out believing "the hype" about Climate Change (or global warming as it was known then) – and started to investigate it. Whilst it certainly true C02 is a factor in keeping the planet warm and increasing it will cause some additional "green house effect" - all these talks of tipping points, doom and gloom is unproven and dangerous nonsense.

    One of the major reasons "I lost the faith" was due to the anti scientific behaviour of the leading climate scientists – refusal to show data (or even worse losing it) and their workings, lack of quality control (0.25 FTE per year on GISS quality control per year), the use and abuse of proxy’s, not caring if the temperature record is corrupted by badly sited temperature stations, the loss of thousands of these weather stations in the last 20 years – the list goes on,

    Science works by putting forward a hypothesis and trying to defeat it – not so for Climate Scientists - Phil Jones (head of Climate at the University of East Anglia) "We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it." That is what is known as scientific method – something Climate Science is not. If you do not fully disclose everything so other can repeat it – it is bad science.

    Unlike Mango (joke) I'm not a climate scientist, however I have working in the IT industry for about 20 years. If I had the same slap dash approach to data capture, storage and manipulation as these climate scientists seem to – I would not have lasted 5 years.

    Trying to model a chaotic and complex system, where no-one knows all the drivers, linkages, forces and imparting huge estimations into it - where even the underlying physics of what is happening are not fully understood - and then blaming everything on one tiny part of the atmosphere is ludicrous.

    Any way – the current temperature is not statistically different from what it was in 1995.

    Complain about this comment

  • 170. At 11:32pm on 28 Sep 2009, manysummits wrote:

    To freesasha, re: 'hockey stick:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/

    http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/ (see Jan 13/09; 2008 Global Temperature Analysis)

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 171. At 00:01am on 29 Sep 2009, manysummits wrote:

    From China to Africa:

    'Wunarik' was telling me today that until he was ten years old he had never taken a drink of water from a tap. 'Wunarik' was born and raised in a Dinka village near the Nile River in southern Sudan, and fought as a 'Lost Boy' for several years, before the United Nations arranged to disarm and send some thirty-seven thousand child soldiers to refugee camps etc...

    I have a book on Africa, a good one, in which is written:

    "Africa remains mired in poverty. Of the 177 countries on UNDP's Human Development Index, the bottom 23 are all African, as are 34 of the bottom 39."

    "The Betrayal of Africa", by Gerald Coplan, (2008).
    ---------------------------------------------------

    Neither I nor 'Wunarik' disputes this.

    But it is most certainly a 'civilocentric' viewpoint.

    In discussing this with my friend, I found that his views on our civilization and on his former village life (without the intrusion of civilization), are virtually identical to those of the 'Apache' as revealed in John Cremony's first hand and expert account, "Life Among the Apaches." (1868)

    http://www.archive.org/details/lifeamongapaches00cremrich
    --------------

    By this I mean that while the Apache recognized the superiority of our modern weapons, and the technical power of civilization, they nonetheless preferred their way of life, and considered 'us' definitely their inferiors in most that mattered to them.

    This resonates with me personally, as it was for similar reasons that I radically changed my way of life, and climbed mountains for seven years.

    Long have I wondered about why I did this, and why I admired 'The Apache' so much, having only a virtual understanding of them and their culture.

    But now, having met, in a sense, the real McCoy (Apache) in person, I understand more fully.

    We are the super specialized ones, dependent on our elaborate, expensive and as it looks now, planet-altering civilized sub-systems.

    Like the Panda, we are at extreme risk.

    'Back to Basics' might take on a new meaning very soon.

    'Wunarik's former way of life may soon be a memory, but I have the feeling that so will ours.

    What will replace them?

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 172. At 02:01am on 29 Sep 2009, jr4412 wrote:

    MangoChutneyUKOK #165.

    "..my poor english has let me down again.."

    yes, apparently, because "By showing the invalidity.." == put down. where exactly did you advance a constructive idea?


    sensibleoldgrannie #167.

    "..being forced to breed is slavery."

    yet, the mullahs and the pope do not allow use of condoms (or other birth control methods).


    crsmumby #169.

    "..all these talks of tipping points ... is unproven and dangerous nonsense."

    like you, I'm no scientist either, but from what I remember from (school) chemistry "tipping points" are real.

    "Any way – the current temperature is not statistically different from what it was in 1995."

    atmosphere perhaps, but sea surface temperatures are up and glaciers and ice caps are shrinking.

    Complain about this comment

  • 173. At 02:04am on 29 Sep 2009, jr4412 wrote:

    manysummits #171.

    "'Wunarik's former way of life may soon be a memory, but I have the feeling that so will ours."

    agree, pessimistic view -- less than ten years before the proverbial hits the fan.

    Complain about this comment

  • 174. At 07:49am on 29 Sep 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @jr4412 #173

    atmosphere perhaps, but sea surface temperatures are up and glaciers and ice caps are shrinking.

    and how does this proves AGW?

    Nordenskjöld sailed through the NE passage in 1878-79. In the early 1900s, icebreakers sailed through the passage, and in the 1930s the Northern Sea Route was established by the USSR. Since World War II the Soviet Union and now Russia has maintained a regular highway for shipping along the NE passage. Of course none of this matters to the media, who tell us the North East passage was traversed for the first time this year by a German shipping company, implying that AGW is responsible

    Check the facts for yourselves

    Complain about this comment

  • 175. At 08:05am on 29 Sep 2009, simon-swede wrote:

    Mango at #154 (and subsequently)

    It's not your English that I have problems with, it is your conclusions and the arguments you put forward to support them. I disagree with your conclusions because I have reached different ones based on evidence I find compelling. I find your arguments challenging my conclusions to be either unconvincing or simply wrong.

    It also seems to me that you apply a double-standard, depending on when you put forward assertions for or against climate change. If it is an "anti-" AGW argument, you seem to be able to believe anything as "proof". When it comes to arguments "for" AGW, you don't seem to want to accept anything, no matter how strong the evidence.

    For example, you wrote: "McIntyre has proved time and again that Hockey Stick is broken and current temperatures are not unique, there is no proof that CO2 is capable of raising the temperature significantly and there is still the question of the missing AGW signature as claimed by the IPCC for the last 20 years, but still they insist AGW is real".

    That's quite a lot of proofs in one sentence!

    I read most of your links but I find them often to be biased, or where they are unbiased, that they don't make the point that you claim they do or at least not to the same extent as you would like us to believe.

    To use the McIntyre vs Jone's debate (about the "missing" data) as one example, you would like us to take "as gospel" the Cato Institute opinion piece or the version posted on the Watts blog. Hardly neutral analyses. The same issue was taken up by Nature, and their piece shows more than one side to the issue. I give more weight to teh Nature assessment because I find it more credible, not simply because it suits my alleged "dogma". See:


    http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2009/08/mcintyre_versus_jones_climate_1.html



    My view is that there is compelling and growing evidence for AGW. Sure, there are uncertainties; in some areas considerable uncertainties, in others less. There will be errors made, and corrected as more information comes available and understanding improves. Overall, I consider that there is sufficient evidence already that AGW is a real problem which needs to be addressed. Given the amount of effort being expended into addressing AGW, I guess I can say I am not alone in reaching this conclusion.

    You seem to want me to accept your conclusion that the above is wrong and that AGW is not a problem at all. Your basis for that is that foundations for AGW are at best mistaken if not outright fraudulent. For that you need to make a much stronger case.

    Complain about this comment

  • 176. At 08:25am on 29 Sep 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    Simon and others

    Do you accept

    1 CO2 capability to raise the temperature diminishes with concentration?
    2 The most important GHG is water vapour?
    3 Climate sensitivity is the key to the whole question?
    4 ice melting, birds migrating etc is possible proof of warming, but tells us nothing about what caused the warming?
    5 The IPCC predict an AGW signature in chapter 9 of their report?

    Complain about this comment

  • 177. At 08:29am on 29 Sep 2009, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    jr4412,
    wrong......a bit of research is needed here.

    WHAT RELIGION SAYS AND WHAT MEN DO ARE ENTIRELY SEPARATE.

    I have posted the Natural Birth Control method which if used correctly, is very effective and acceptable to all religions.

    If there is such a big deal about the size of the population then those who want to control it can pay for full education in family planning across the world.

    The Natural Birth Control method does not cost money except the initial outlay of an adapted thermometer a pen and monthly chart.

    For those living in deepest deprivation, where paper, pens and thermometers are impossible, a smooth stone works as the indicator device.

    It is all about educating the ignorant, and I don't mean the poor.

    Complain about this comment

  • 178. At 08:38am on 29 Sep 2009, simon-swede wrote:

    #176

    Mango, I've explained my view.

    Complain about this comment

  • 179. At 09:48am on 29 Sep 2009, jr4412 wrote:

    sensibleoldgrannie #177.

    "WHAT RELIGION SAYS AND WHAT MEN DO ARE ENTIRELY SEPARATE."

    there's a whole (different) debate in this one.

    I appreciate that this is not a black and white issue, but religious belief is usually the problem; for instance, in 2008/9 the BBC and others reported from Papua New Guinea on the rising niumber of women killed because they're "witches". that, like the birth control/breeding issue, is primarily about control (property & persons).

    http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/01/08/png.witchcraft/index.html

    http://www.nowpublic.com/strange/witch-burning-epidemic-papua-new-guinea

    Complain about this comment

  • 180. At 10:18am on 29 Sep 2009, jr4412 wrote:

    MangoChutneyUKOK #174.

    I notice you took care to evade the principle point made in #172 (and #161), can't say I'm surprised.

    Complain about this comment

  • 181. At 11:32am on 29 Sep 2009, manysummits wrote:

    Glimpses of the Future

    Iraq's drought: Eden drying out
    By Hugh Sykes
    BBC News, Baghdad
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8279290.stm

    Japan prices continue record fall
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8279832.stm
    -----------------------------------------------

    To jr4412:

    It may be that with this door closing, another will open. (Wunarik's and 'our' ways of living)

    The paridigm shift we often speak of will probably require a similar sea-change in our thinking - all of us.

    Village life cannot escape the effects of our worldwide civilizations, and we cannot move forward until we realize that it is not 'us' that needs to help Africa, but Africa that needs to help us. I speak metaphorically, as all indigenous and close to the Earth peoples have much to pass on to us.

    But, as the legends say, for the teacher to succeed, the pupil must be ready.

    A dimmer view perhaps is that of the superb Edward Gibbon, in his "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire":

    "The power of instruction is seldom of much efficacy, except in those happy dispositions where it is almost superfluous."

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 182. At 11:32am on 29 Sep 2009, simon-swede wrote:

    The New York Times on-line features a pointed cartoon by Chappette in the context of the G-20 meeting and its two big agenda.

    Moderators permitting, it can be viewed at:

    http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2009/09/25/opinion/global/20090925-chappatte.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 183. At 11:38am on 29 Sep 2009, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    jr4412 at 179,

    You have proved my point.

    SCAPEGOAT: a person who is blamed for the wrongdoings or mistakes of others
    IGNORANCE: lack of knowledge or information
    CONTROL: the power to influence people's behaviour
    the power to alter the course of events
    the restriction of an activity
    the restriction of a tendancy
    the restriction of a phenomenon
    the means of limiting something
    the means of regulating something
    AUTOCRACY: a system of government by one person with absolute power (authoritarian)
    PATRIARCHY: a system of society where men hold most or all of the power (authoritarian)
    MATRIARCHY: a woman who is the head or the family or tribe, a powerful older woman
    (note the different emphasis)
    MERITOCRACY: government or leadership by people of great merit (authoritative)

    from Readers Digest Word Power(charity bookshop £2.00) recycled information

    Complain about this comment

  • 184. At 12:44pm on 29 Sep 2009, WhiteEnglishProud wrote:

    http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/rcs_chronologies1.gif

    Complain about this comment

  • 185. At 1:26pm on 29 Sep 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @jj4412

    You want constructive suggestions?

    How about we stop all this AGW nonsense and spend a fraction of the money saved on doing something that would really make a difference, such as providing fresh water and sanitation to the millions in third world countries who die every year, because of the lack of fresh water and sanitation?

    Complain about this comment

  • 186. At 1:29pm on 29 Sep 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @WhiteEnglishProud

    you need to elaborate

    Complain about this comment

  • 187. At 1:33pm on 29 Sep 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @WhiteEnglishProud

    An explanation is here:

    http://joannenova.com.au/2009/09/breaking-news-cherry-picking-of-historic-proportions/

    Complain about this comment

  • 188. At 1:47pm on 29 Sep 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    a quote from McIntyres website:

    If the non-robustness observed here prove out (and I've provided a generating script), this will have an important impact on many multiproxy studies that have relied on this study. Studies illustrated in the IPCC AR4 spaghetti graph, Wikipedia spaghetti graph or NAS Panel spaghetti graph (consult them for bibliographic refs) that use the Yamal proxy include: Briffa 2000; Mann and Jones 2003; Jones and Mann 2004; Moberg et al 2005; D'Arrigo et al 2006; Osborn and Briffa 2006; Hegerl et al 2007, plus more recently Briffa et al 2008, Kaufman et al 2009. (Note that spaghetti graph studies not included in the above list all employ strip bark bristlecone pines - some use both.)

    It will be interesting to see what realclimate has to say on the matter:

    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7168

    Complain about this comment

  • 189. At 2:10pm on 29 Sep 2009, jr4412 wrote:

    MangoChutneyUKOK #185.

    well, you've tried, but FWIW, your vision is too limited!

    "..stop all this AGW nonsense and spend a fraction of the money saved on doing something that would really make a difference.."

    for instance, if "we" stopped all defence spending for one year, we'd have 1460bn+ US Dollars (source: www.sipri.org) budget for those worthy causes you point to and more.

    Complain about this comment

  • 190. At 4:37pm on 29 Sep 2009, davblo2 wrote:

    Now here's a thing...

    First look here find Figure 2 and note the black line, the "new" data which zig-zags along, stays fairly level and doesn't shoot up like the red one.

    Now look here, where the same damning evidence is being reported; find the same graph... or is it? Look how the black line now dips suddenly at the far right.

    Both graphs can been seen on the "climateaudit" web site, here and here.

    Open them in separate windows and compare them.
    They can't both be right; can they?

    There is also a similar pair where the green "merged" line is included; here and here.

    Somebody can't get their story straight?

    Mango; since you were so quick to present these fine examples, maybe you could find out what is going on.

    All the best; davblo2

    Complain about this comment

  • 191. At 5:11pm on 29 Sep 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    • 3.575 million people die each year from water-related disease.
    • 43% of water-related deaths are due to diarrhea.
    • 84% of water-related deaths are in children ages 0 - 14.
    • 98% of water-related deaths occur in the developing world.
    • 884 million people, lack access to safe water supplies, approximately one in eight people.
    • The water and sanitation crisis claims more lives through disease than any war claims through guns.
    • At any given time, half of the world’s hospital beds are occupied by patients suffering from a water-related disease.
    • Only 62% of the world’s population has access to improved sanitation - defined as a sanitation facility that ensures hygienic separation of human excreta from human contact.
    • 2.5 billion people lack access to improved sanitation, including 1.2 billion people who have no facilities at all.
    • The majority of the illness in the world is caused by fecal matter.
    • Lack of sanitation is the world’s biggest cause of infection.
    • At any one time, more than half of the poor in the developing world are ill from causes related to hygiene, sanitation and water supply.
    • 88% of cases of diarrhea worldwide are attributable to unsafe water, inadequate sanitation or insufficient hygiene.
    • Of the 60 million people added to the world’s towns and cities every year, most occupy impoverished slums and shanty-towns with no sanitation facilities.
    • It is estimated that improved sanitation facilities could reduce diarrhea-related deaths in young children by more than one-third. If hygiene promotion is added, such as teaching proper hand washing, deaths could be reduced by two thirds. It would also help accelerate economic and social development in countries where sanitation is a major cause of lost work and school days because of illness.
    • Every 15 seconds, a child dies from a water-related disease.
    • Children in poor environments often carry 1,000 parasitic worms in their bodies at any time.
    • 1.4 million children die as a result of diarrhea each year.
    • 90% of all deaths caused by diarrheal diseases are children under 5 years of age, mostly in developing countries.


    http://water.org/learn-about-the-water-crisis/facts/

    it's a start and at a fraction of the cost being wasted on AGW

    Complain about this comment

  • 192. At 5:24pm on 29 Sep 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @davblo2 #190
    Interesting that you are quick to point out “errors” in McIntyre’s work, but not Manns work

    As I am sure you are aware, McIntyre has updated the graphs and kindly provided links to the previous graphs including dates when the change was made

    It’s a shame others are not so transparent with their work

    Complain about this comment

  • 193. At 5:26pm on 29 Sep 2009, davblo2 wrote:

    MangoChutneyUKOK #191: "...and at a fraction of the cost..."

    I'm reading the link you posted.

    Are you reading my #190?
    It was you led me to it.

    ...and as jr4412 said... a fraction of the cost of... warfare.

    All the best; davblo2

    Complain about this comment

  • 194. At 5:54pm on 29 Sep 2009, simon-swede wrote:

    #191

    Some of the many problems with your argument Mango include your assumption that (a) money is being wasted on AGW; (b) any money "saved" from AGW will be spent on these things; and (c) that it is a zero-sum game between AGW and these things, and there aren't other sources of funding.

    Access to water and sanitation aren't exactly new problems - and concern about AGW is not the reason why they aren't receiving the funding they deserve.




    Complain about this comment

  • 195. At 6:09pm on 29 Sep 2009, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    Thank you MangoChutneyUKOK,
    very useful links

    Complain about this comment

  • 196. At 6:18pm on 29 Sep 2009, davblo2 wrote:

    MangoChutneyUKOK #192: "As I am sure you are aware, McIntyre has updated the graphs and kindly provided links to the previous graphs including dates when the change was made"

    I don't know what you mean.

    The McIntyre one was posted 2 days ago and shows one version of the graph.

    I don't see any updates, corrections or explanations. Do you?

    The JoNova link you gave shows a blog posted today with a different version of the graph where the black line drops to the right.

    Can you explain more clearly? What links are you referring to?

    /davblo2

    Complain about this comment

  • 197. At 6:27pm on 29 Sep 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @simon-swede #194

    I accept everything you say in this post, but would point out AGW is still unproven even after decades of assertion by the IPCC. Indeed, McIntyres recent work even seems to indicate that some climate scientists are being a little economical with the truth, although, whilst not wishing to speak for McIntyre, I'm sure he wouldn't say that.

    The fact remains we spend very little on trying to help millions of people who die every year, because of dirty water and lack of sanitation. I can remember reading, although I can't remember where, we could prevent this deaths for around £5b initial costs and then just running costs.

    This is a paltry sum to pay for millions of lives being lost now and in the future.

    How many people have died because of proven AGW to date?

    @sensibleoldgrannie

    you're welcome - it's nice to see somebody reads the links ;)

    Complain about this comment

  • 198. At 6:28pm on 29 Sep 2009, davblo2 wrote:

    MangoChutneyUKOK #192: "McIntyre has updated the graphs"


    I think I see what you mean.

    There is a small comment in the text following the graph...

    ...[Amended Sep 28 6 pm. Replaces url]

    The "url" is a link to the old version. No explanation given.

    Funny the JoNova site went ahead and published the old (presumably incorrect) graph today.

    /davblo2

    Complain about this comment

  • 199. At 6:35pm on 29 Sep 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @davblo2 #196/198

    No problem - glad you found the update

    I think JoNova wrote the article before McIntyre updated

    Complain about this comment

  • 200. At 6:43pm on 29 Sep 2009, simon-swede wrote:

    #197

    But if, as many do, one accepts that there is compelling evidence that AGW is a real problem, then it is essential that resources are allocated to addressing it. Unless of course all this is just another way of you trying to say that AGW isn't happening.

    Come to think of it, didn't you raise exactly this argument some weeks ago?

    Complain about this comment

  • 201. At 6:49pm on 29 Sep 2009, jr4412 wrote:

    MangoChutneyUKOK #197.

    "The fact remains we spend very little on trying to help millions of people who die every year, because of dirty water and lack of sanitation. I can remember reading, although I can't remember where, we could prevent this deaths for around £5b initial costs and then just running costs."

    for only one year's worth of defence spending you'd be able to spend your quoted "..£5b initial costs.." 292 times over!.

    any comments??

    Complain about this comment

  • 202. At 6:54pm on 29 Sep 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @simon-swede #200

    i probably have raised the clean water issue several times - it's important and doesn't get the attention it deserves - does anybody have a problem with high lighting this issue?

    and you are correct, I, and many others, including scientists working on climate issues, do not accept CO2 is the driver of climate change, because there is no compelling evidence. I've asked many times to see this compelling evidence, but to date no body has been able to show anything other than assertion and unpublished denial of the work by scientists such as Pielke, Christy, Spencer etc etc etc

    Complain about this comment

  • 203. At 6:57pm on 29 Sep 2009, davblo2 wrote:

    MangoChutneyUKOK #199: "I think JoNova wrote the article before McIntyre updated"

    Doesn't it make you wonder though?

    Without any control at all; any of those graphs could be wrong; just like the first one he published on his blog site.

    JoNova collected miss-information and has now passed it on to all her readers.

    And yet you happily believe them rather than the official view.

    /davblo2

    Complain about this comment

  • 204. At 7:15pm on 29 Sep 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @jj4412 #201

    any comments??

    yes, presumably with your belief of limiting population:

    It is recognized that primary responsibility for the reduction of the world population will likely fall to the 'developing world', as the population curve of the 'developed world' is already flat or negative.

    you would prefer to let them die

    Complain about this comment

  • 205. At 7:25pm on 29 Sep 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @davblo2

    I'm sure JoNova will correct her page

    Without any control at all

    McIntyre is intending to publish and as before will publish his findings and methodology - he has already published his code to show how he came to his conclusion, unlike the authors of the original paper who sought to conceal the data

    And yet you happily believe them rather than the official view

    Do you mean the cherry picked, official view?

    -----

    Let me ask you a question. Let's assume, McIntyre is correct all the "Hockey Sticks" are well and truely broken, does this make you and others a little sceptical of AGW?

    Complain about this comment

  • 206. At 7:38pm on 29 Sep 2009, jr4412 wrote:

    MangoChutneyUKOK #204.

    your reply shows that you're not willing to address the issue of defence spending; of course, that is your right.

    ah, c'est la vie.

    Complain about this comment

  • 207. At 7:55pm on 29 Sep 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @jr4412 #206

    in an ideal world, we wouldn't need to defend ourselves, we don't live in an ideal world, we have to defend ourselves

    this is fact.

    I am not condoning the funding defence receives, but AGW is unproven. We should not be spending such ridiculous sums on something unproven, if it exists may not actually be a problem and we should certainly not be trying to engineer a solution that may have unknown consequences.

    Any idea what would happen with global wind patterns, if we built thousands of wind turbines taking out the energy from these winds, possiby changing wind patterns? Any idea what happens downwind of these wind turbines? Will the decrease in wind or wind speeds in some areas affect farming?

    No?

    Me neither and i don't want to take the risk



    Complain about this comment

  • 208. At 7:56pm on 29 Sep 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    fancy answering my questions in #176 now?

    Complain about this comment

  • 209. At 8:17pm on 29 Sep 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    or perhaps #205?

    Complain about this comment

  • 210. At 8:19pm on 29 Sep 2009, davblo2 wrote:

    MangoChutneyUKOK #207: "Me neither and i don't want to take the risk [if we built thousands of wind turbines ]"

    Ah ha. So you wouldn't risk building wind turbines, (I don't like them either), but you don't worry about burning all the fossil fuel we can lay our hands on.

    /davblo2

    Complain about this comment

  • 211. At 8:20pm on 29 Sep 2009, jr4412 wrote:

    MangoChutneyUKOK #208.

    "fancy answering my questions in #176 now?"

    to be frank, I've little time for nit-picking and AGW is not my main concern.

    the way I see it, we need to plan and act globally (on matters of infra-structure planning & development and resource allocation), as one species, not as 200+ "nations", each with their own, usually conflicting, agendas; hence the point of UN reform in the declaration (a major point which you've failed to mention/address so far).

    Complain about this comment

  • 212. At 8:36pm on 29 Sep 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @davblo2 #210

    i think fossil fuel burning is unfortunately the only viable option we have at the moment, i would prefer to go the nuclear option and explore the possibilities of fusion

    i think pollution caused by fossil fuel is a big problem, but one that we can solve relatively painlessly. From what i have read, the CO2 part of these emissions are not responsible for global warming reorded towards the end of the 20th century

    @jr4412 #211

    nit-picking? Do you call possible falsification of hockey sticks nit-picking?

    The UN? Yes, it needs reform, but not in the way you mean, althouhg i am not sure what UN reform has to do with an environmental blog

    Complain about this comment

  • 213. At 8:45pm on 29 Sep 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    last post

    falsification is too strong a word

    Complain about this comment

  • 214. At 8:49pm on 29 Sep 2009, jr4412 wrote:

    MangoChutneyUKOK #207.

    "Any idea what would happen with global wind patterns, if we built thousands of wind turbines taking out the energy from these winds, possiby changing wind patterns? Any idea what happens downwind of these wind turbines? Will the decrease in wind or wind speeds in some areas affect farming?"

    --> Don Quixote


    "I am not condoning the funding defence receives, but AGW is unproven. We should not be spending such ridiculous sums on something unproven, if it exists may not actually be a problem and we should certainly not be trying to engineer a solution that may have unknown consequences."

    --> Ned Ludd

    Complain about this comment

  • 215. At 11:29pm on 29 Sep 2009, manysummits wrote:

    Kenya's heart stops pumping
    By James Morgan
    BBC News, Kenya
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8057316.stm
    ---------------------------------------------

    From the Prime Minister of Kenya:

    ""We must act now - before the entire ecosystem is irreversibly damaged," said Mr Odinga... We are looking at securing the livelihoods and economies of millions of Africans who directly and indirectly depend on the ecosystem."
    ---------------------

    Excerpt:

    "Worse still, the water from Mau quenches thirst far beyond Kenya. Its rivers feed Tanzania's Serengeti and keep the fishermen of Lake Victoria afloat.

    When you consider that Lake Victoria is the source of the Nile, you begin to grasp the scale of the crisis the Kenyan government is facing.

    "This is no longer a Kenyan problem," said Mr Odinga. "Tanzania and Egypt are feeling the heat from the Mau.

    "And the implications go beyond the environment. This has the potential to create insecurity as people squabble over dwindling resources."
    -------------------------------------------------------------------

    Manysummits:

    I find this report very encouraging. The 'Limits to Growth' are becoming increasingly apparent at a variety of scales.

    I wish to congratulate the BBC on their reporting - absolutely first rate! Please keep up the good work.

    - Manysummits -


    Complain about this comment

  • 216. At 11:46pm on 29 Sep 2009, manysummits wrote:

    \\\ Plan of Action ///

    1) "From the bottom up", says 'ghostofsichuan'. I agree.

    There is indeed strength in numbers. We the people are almost seven billion strong, and increasingly linked by the world wide web. While big business and big government are nominally in charge, in the final analysis, we are.

    2) "Think small," says 'ghostofsichuan.' I agree.

    Undoubtedly we will build big solar-thermal plants and infrastructure, and perhaps fourth generation nuclear.

    But we should equip ourselves to 'survive', with minimum installations on our homes, in our villages, on our apartment buildings - to keep the computers running and one or two essential services. This will give us increased independence, and make us aware of what our 'basic needs' are. Perhaps solar installations - why muck about? The Sun is the key to Earth's habitability - let's devote our time and energy and resources, while we still have all three, to this end, and forget, if possible, the stupid and wasteful ideas, such as sequestering CO2 from coal.

    3) Build 'Wally Trees' (Wallace Broecker), and begin removing CO2 from the atmosphere - now. Let's devote our time and energy and resources to the single best idea I've heard of in reversing the buidup of CO2 in the air.

    4) Think - for - ourselves.

    \\\ Manysummits ///

    Complain about this comment

  • 217. At 10:46am on 30 Sep 2009, davblo2 wrote:

    Worth a read?

    From the "International Food Policy Research Institute"

    Climate change: Impact on agriculture and costs of adaptation,
    a link to the full report (pdf) is at the bottom of the page (marked "pr21.pdf").

    ...and a Guardian article based on the report;
    "By 2050, 25m more children will go hungry as climate change leads to food crisis"

    All the best; davblo2

    Complain about this comment

  • 218. At 11:26am on 30 Sep 2009, manysummits wrote:

    To davblo2 #217:

    I've read both reports - thanks for the links!

    Noted this from your second link:

    "The food price crisis of last year really was a wake-up call to a lot of people that we are going to have 50% more people on the surface of the Earth by 2050," said Gerald Nelson, the lead author of the report. "Meeting those demands for food coming out of population growth is going to be a huge challenge – even without climate change."
    -----------------------

    I'm reading "Scientific American Earth 3.0", summer 2009 issue: "Population and Sustainability" article.

    And I'm still working on the Stockholm report "Planetary Boundaries."

    I'm still wondering why they did not include population as one of the planetary boundaries, even if they didn't want to quantify it, as they did this with two other boundaries, 'aerosol loading' and 'pollution.'

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 219. At 11:41am on 30 Sep 2009, manysummits wrote:

    Underacanoe sent me this just this morning. Since the last words in my post #216 were:

    "Think -for - ourselves," I thought this youtube presentation appropriate. Noam Chomsky's "Hegemony or Survival" says essentially the same thing.
    ------------

    The Arrivals pt 2 (mind control feat George Carlin)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3r0VnqXu-vg&feature=related

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 220. At 1:27pm on 30 Sep 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    i find it interesting that some people choose to attack the individual, suggesting they believe everything they are told, rather than engaging in discussion and persuasion and yet not question their own dogma when they don't even understand the science behind climate change

    @davblo2

    interesting links. I don't agree with the man made warming hypothesis, which all studies seem to believe is happneing. do you think we should relook at GM foods as a way of feeding the world?

    Complain about this comment

  • 221. At 1:41pm on 30 Sep 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    I see some are calling for employees of the CRU, NOAA & NASA to explain why they think McIntyre is wrong or resign. The CRU are the providers of the tree ring data, which appears to have been deliberately cherry-picked to prove the MWP didn't exist. These Hockey Sticks appear extensively in the IPCC literature to show how temperatures have risen due to man made emissions

    Interesting

    A laymans version of McIntyres findings is here

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/9/29/the-yamal-implosion.html

    Please read the full story before attacks on McIntyre

    Complain about this comment

  • 222. At 2:38pm on 30 Sep 2009, Jack Frost wrote:

    It seems the Telegraph have picked up on the McIntyre story, I do hope Richard Black shows some enthusiasm for following up on this, and disseminates its implications throughout the BBC website TV news stories.

    Afterall we wouldn't want one sided biased news would we?

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100011716/how-the-global-warming-industry-is-based-on-one-massive-lie/comment-page-3/#comment-100046900

    Complain about this comment

  • 223. At 2:46pm on 30 Sep 2009, davblo2 wrote:

    MangoChutneyUKOK "221: "Please read the full story before attacks on McIntyre"

    The main problem I have is that you are all glossing over the fact that the initial graphs McIntyre posted were subsequently replaced with revised ones with an easily visible difference in the plot of the "new" data. The initial ones showed a pronounced downturn in recent years, whereas the revised ones showed more of a continuation of fluctuations. See my comments #190 and #196 for detail and links.

    The point is there is no quality control here.
    You all believed the first graphs; now you all believe the revised ones. What if he suddenly comes out with a third set?
    The JoNova site is still showing one of the incorrect graphs and the 'denial' following there are all in support of it. But it is incorrect according to McIntyre.

    Without any form of quality control it is wrong to jump to conclusions.

    All the best; davblo2

    Complain about this comment

  • 224. At 3:13pm on 30 Sep 2009, simon-swede wrote:

    A recent study found that there was at most a weak link between population growth and rising emissions of the greenhouse gases that cause climate change. The study was published on 28 September in the journal Environment and Urbanization.

    A press release notes that the "paper contradicts growing calls for population growth to be limited as part of the fight against climate change and shows that the real issue is not the growth in the number of people but the growth in the number of consumers and their consumption levels."

    It also notes that while "contraception and sexual/reproductive health services are key contributors to development, health and human rights in poorer nations and communities... these are not a solution to climate change — which is caused predominantly by a minority of the world’s population that has the highest levels of consumption."

    For the full release and information about how to obtain the report, see:

    http://www.iied.org/human-settlements/media/study-shatters-myth-population-growth-major-driver-climate-change

    Complain about this comment

  • 225. At 3:16pm on 30 Sep 2009, jr4412 wrote:

    MangoChutneyUKOK #220.

    not likely, of course, but just in case your oblique remark "i find it interesting that some people choose to attack the individual.." refers to #214, I'd refer you back to #204 where you did just that.

    Complain about this comment

  • 226. At 3:19pm on 30 Sep 2009, davblo2 wrote:

    colonelAgentEnigma #222: "It seems the Telegraph have picked up on the McIntyre story"

    If you look carefully you'll find that James Delingpole also posted the "incorrect" graph to start with. Part way through the readers comments; you'll find...

    "francist on Sep 29th, 2009 at 4:02 pm" who says...

    "James, please note that Stave M has found a mistake in his calculations and replaced the graph you are linking to http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/rcs_chronologies_rev2.gif"

    ...and soon after...

    "James Delingpole on Sep 29th, 2009 at 4:40 pm" replies...

    "@Francist. Thanks - I have amended my copy accordingly."

    No explanations, just swap one graph for another.

    Does your conscience rest easy with that doing on?

    All the best; davblo2

    Complain about this comment

  • 227. At 3:24pm on 30 Sep 2009, simon-swede wrote:

    #223

    Davblo2, I agree with your comments about lack of quality control.

    The "rush to print/screen" to announce research results circumvents the established peer review process which are an essential component of reporting of scientific results. It ends up with an unsightly and unnecessary spiral of mistakes and misunderstandings, criticism and denunciation, defence and retraction, etc.

    Although these things happen too with peer review for scientific journals, at least they happen in a calmer environment, before the articles hit the press and are moderated by a journal's editor.

    It is an increasing problem with blogs and web-sites where there is a complete absence of peer review. And there is a problem when such material is recycled into other blogs (as we saw here) and errors are propogated through the system.

    This rush to announce unreviewed results is not limited to climate by any means. However the passionate debates around issues like climate, tend to result in announcements being seized on and trumpeted far and wide, by the proponents of particular views - exacerbating the problem when errors turn up later on.

    Complain about this comment

  • 228. At 3:29pm on 30 Sep 2009, simon-swede wrote:

    Re #221 and #222

    These pieces from blogs are hardly independent reporting of the story! Perhaps serious journalists are doing some checking before jumping to conclusions?

    Complain about this comment

  • 229. At 11:26pm on 30 Sep 2009, manysummits wrote:

    Population:

    George Monbiot read the same report as that posted by simon-swede #224.

    "The Population Myth," by George Monbiot: (Sept 29/09)

    http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/09/29/the-population-myth/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------

    I'm glad the discussion on population is taking place.

    But it looks a lot like denial.

    The really poor will only have a small impact if they stay that way. Is that what we want?

    Or perhaps the wealthy will all decide to live 'close to the earth', at subsistence level? Is that what we are pinning our hopes on?

    I think the situation is increasingly being perceived as desperate, and some of us are cracking under the strain.

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 230. At 11:56pm on 30 Sep 2009, manysummits wrote:

    Planetary Boundaries - (cont'd)

    Excerpt - "Biodiversity loss" (p. 17 & 18)

    "The current and projected rate of biodiversity loss constitutes the sixth major extinction event in the history of life on Earth – the first to be driven specifically by the impacts of human activities on the planet (Chapin et al. 2000)...

    Since the advent of the Anthropocene, humans have increased the rate of species extinction by 100-1,000 times the background rates that were typical over Earth’s history (Mace et al. 2005) resulting in a current global average extinction rate of [greater than or equal to] 100 extinctions per million species years. The average global extinction rate is projected to increase another 10-fold, to 1,000-10,000 E/MSY during the current century (Mace et al. 2005)."

    http://www.stockholmresilience.org/planetary-boundaries
    -----------------------------

    Manysummits:

    The "Anthropocene" is taken as a given in this far-reaching article on 'planetary boundaries.'

    It is repeatedly pointed out that these various sub-systems are all coupled to varying degrees, and as I read the comments on polulation in the above posts I thought of this.

    The impact of an extra two or three billion people is not restricted to CO2 and climate change.

    People everywhere require potable water, water for crops, and land for crops. And a few billion more of us will displace more wildlife, both plant and animal and more besides.

    And at some point it will just be too crowded.

    We are only now coming to quantitative grips with the identified parameters. Some, pollution and aerosol loading, don't even have quatities ascribed to them as regards 'boundaries', and doubtless there are more than nine sub-systems in the Earth-System, and doubtless we do not understand very well the coupling between them.

    Consider this on "Global freshwater use" (from 'Planetary boundaries'):

    "The global freshwater cycle has entered the Anthropocene (Meybeck 2003), because humans are now the dominant driving force altering global-scale river flow (Shiklomanov and Rodda (2003) and the spatial patterns and seasonal timing of vapour flows (Gordon et al. 2005). An estimated 25% of the world’s river basins run dry before reaching the oceans, due to use of freshwater resources in the basins [my emphasis] (Molden et al. 2007)."
    --------------------------------

    I would be interested to know what impressions have been made on the bloggers who have read the full Stockholm Resilience Centre report?

    - Manysummits -


    Complain about this comment

  • 231. At 06:47am on 01 Oct 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @davblo2 #223

    The main problem I have is that you are all glossing over the fact that the initial graphs McIntyre posted were subsequently replaced with revised ones with an easily visible difference in the plot of the "new" data.

    So you accept McIntyre has a point, it's just the reporting that's wrong?

    The initial graphs as posted were an error, the errors were spotted, the graphs replaced with the updated graphs and a short note was placed below the graphs to say when they were replaced and where the original graphs were. It seems pretty transparent to me, but then I am biased.

    Spencer did something similar when he spotted a mistake in his work.

    I'm sure the guys at real climate would do the same, but then again read this for details of Gavin the Mystery Man! lol

    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5077

    and real proof of the identity of the mystery man

    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5093

    The point is there is no quality control here.

    And where is the QA over at NASA and CRU?

    NASA’s Gavin Schmidt has admitted they don’t have sufficient funds to have QA, at least in his team and CRU clearly don’t have any kind of QA – losing valuable historic temperatures is clear demonstration of this.

    You all believed the first graphs; now you all believe the revised ones.

    As Simon will tell you, corrections are made all the time and as long as they are documented, there is no problem. Mann published his latest Hockey Stick in 2008 and confused Africa with Spain , showing Africa much hotter now than in the past. McIntyre pointed out the error and I assume it was corrected with an acknowledge to McIntyre. I could argue that if the peer review was carried out properly, the error would have been spotted, but mistakes do happen and go unnoticed.

    What do you think? Is McIntyre right or wrong? Nothing else matters.

    @jr4412 #225

    I missed the “?” at the end of that last sentence – for that error, I will apologise

    @davblo2 #226

    The Telegraph are not the only people who make mistakes.

    The BBC's Climate Wars paraded Manns new Hockey Stick based on the 2008 Mann paper, which was already in dispute, but the BBC didn't bother to tell us, they just assumed Mann was right.

    @simon-swede #227

    It is an increasing problem with blogs and web-sites where there is a complete absence of peer review. And there is a problem when such material is recycled into other blogs (as we saw here) and errors are propogated through the system.

    Believe it or not, Simon, I actually agree with this statement, but if this is the case then the media should be bound to report both sides of the debate without any bias. I think your statement applies to both sides of the argument.


    @simon-swede #228

    These pieces from blogs are hardly independent reporting of the story! Perhaps serious journalists are doing some checking before jumping to conclusions?

    Again, this should happen on both sides. How often do we see headlines screaming "Ice Melts - Man Made Emissions to Blame!!!", when there is nothing in the report or in the underlying story to prove CO2 is to blame? Even Vicky Pope has made similar comments

    Complain about this comment

  • 232. At 07:06am on 01 Oct 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    The Register picks up on the Briffa data with quite a damning conclusion

    At least eight papers purporting to reconstruct the historical temperature record times may need to be revisited, with significant implications for contemporary climate studies, the basis of the IPCC's assessments. A number of these involve senior climatologists at the British climate research centre CRU at the University East Anglia. In every case, peer review failed to pick up the errors.

    The scandal has serious implications for public trust in science. The IPCC's mission is to reflect the science, not create it.

    As the panel states, its duty is "assessing the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change. It does not carry out new research nor does it monitor climate-related data." But as lead author, Briffa was a key contributor in shaping (no pun intended) the assessment. A small group was able to rewrite history.

    When the IPCC was alerted to peer-reviewed research that refuted the idea, it declined to include it. This leads to the more general, and more serious issue: what happens when peer-review fails - as it did here?

    The scandal has only come to light because of the dogged persistence of a Canadian mathematician who attempted to reproduce the results. Steve McIntyre has written dozens of letters requesting the data and methodology, and over 7,000 blog posts. Yet Yamal has remained elusive for almost a decade


    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/yamal_scandal/

    And the impact of these findings on the IPCC's historic temperature graphs:

    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7229

    Complain about this comment

  • 233. At 07:24am on 01 Oct 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @Richard Black

    Is the BBC going to cover this story in anyway whatsoever?

    Complain about this comment

  • 234. At 11:36am on 01 Oct 2009, manysummits wrote:

    Addendum to #230. "Planetary Boundaries - (cont'd)"

    The story of the young William Kamkwamba who "educated himself in his local library," is an inspiring one, but it also bears on the Population debate. Here is the new generation,from:

    Malawi windmill boy with big fans
    By Jude Sheerin
    BBC News

    "The author spent a year with Mr Kamkwamba writing The Boy Who Harnessed the Wind, which has just been published in the US.

    Mealer says Mr Kamkwamba represents Africa's new "cheetah generation", young people, energetic and technology-hungry, who are taking control of their own destiny."

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8257153.stm
    ---------------------------------------------

    Manysummits:

    For better or for worse, this is the way things are likely to go in Africa, India, China, and all around the world.

    The new science of Earth Systems, and its 'Resilience', should, I think, be part of the education of everyone on the planet.

    There are "Limits to Growth," as we speed into the future.

    - Manysummits -


    Complain about this comment

  • 235. At 11:53am on 01 Oct 2009, manysummits wrote:

    Addendum to # 234:

    I found this after a brief Google search:

    Earth Systems Analysis for Sustainability
    Book, MIT Press

    Author: William Clark, Harvey Brooks Professor of International Science, Public Policy, and Human Development; Co-director, Sustainability Science Program; Faculty Chair, ENRP;

    http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/1944/earth_systems_analysis_for_sustainability.html
    --------------------------

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 236. At 1:44pm on 01 Oct 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @manysummits

    I'd be interested in your thoughts on the errors in Professor Briffa's work highlighted by McIntyre

    Complain about this comment

  • 237. At 2:19pm on 01 Oct 2009, JunkkMale wrote:

    228. At 3:29pm on 30 Sep 2009, simon-swede

    These pieces from blogs are hardly independent reporting of the story!


    Indeed. Which is why I tend not to treat them, or similar as 'reporting'.

    Perhaps serious journalists are doing some checking before jumping to conclusions?

    Hope springs eternal. However, what counts as a 'serious journalist', I do wonder?

    The News Editors blog had an interesting, complementary post relevant to this recently.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2009/09/new_resource_for_citizen_journ.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 238. At 4:40pm on 01 Oct 2009, simon-swede wrote:

    #237

    Thanks for the link to the News Editors blog JunkkMale!

    Complain about this comment

  • 239. At 6:02pm on 01 Oct 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    I see RealClimate has finally responded to McIntyre's findings:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/

    You would think real climate scientists would respond in more measured tones wouldn't you?

    The thing I don't understand about RC's response is they claim McIntyre hasn't addressed the issues and demonstrate by publishing lots of graphs all showing the Hockey Stick, but McIntyre's website does actually address most of the other proxy studies - strange, perhaps RC will update and explain what they mean

    Complain about this comment

  • 240. At 6:08pm on 01 Oct 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    Briffa has returned to work following his illness and responded briefly here, telling us they do not select tree-core samples based on comparison with climate data, which we must, of course, accept:

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2000/

    Complain about this comment

  • 241. At 6:14pm on 01 Oct 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    and McIntyre responds to Briffa:

    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7257

    (still no BBC report on this issue)

    Complain about this comment

  • 242. At 00:31am on 02 Oct 2009, manysummits wrote:

    China

    "In the past decade, China's cities expanded at an average rate of 10% annually. The country's urbanization rate increased from 17.4% to 41.8% between 1978 and 2005, a scale unprecedented in human history.[135]"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Republic_of_China#Demographics
    --------------

    "It is considered a major military regional power and an emerging military superpower.[83]"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Republic_of_China#Military
    ----------------

    "China has one of the world's oldest civilizations and has the oldest continuous civilization.[1]"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China
    ----------------

    "As of 2009[update], there are 1,338,612,968 people in the PRC."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Republic_of_China#Demographics
    -------------

    Manysummits:

    The Dalai Lama visited Calgary yesterday, and was quite the hit.

    All countries have baggage, as do all people.

    The Dalai Lama's message, at least the part that made the most impression on me, was that now there is only "We", meaning the peoples of planet Earth.

    I just watched the BBC video posted below, and read the report.

    "China has been staging mass celebrations to mark 60 years since the Communist Party came to power.

    The day started with vast lines of tanks, soldiers and missile launchers parading through the capital Beijing."

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8284087.stm

    Coincidentally, or not, Michael Moore's new movie is apparently doing more than well:

    "We're just one day away from the widest opening I've ever had for any of my movies. Tomorrow, Friday, October 2nd, "Capitalism: A Love Story" opens on over a thousand screens across the United States, a record for an independent documentary.

    This follows last weekend's limited opening in New York and L.A. where "Capitalism" set the box office record for the highest per screen average of ANY movie released so far this year. Not just any documentary -- any MOVIE!"

    - Michael Moore mailing
    ------------------------

    As Bob Dylan once sang, "The times they are a changing."

    At least I think it was Bob Dylan?

    Anyway, I have the article on "Population & Sustainability", Scientific American Earth 3.0, (Summer 2009) before me.

    The author is Robert Engelman (vice-president for programs at the World-Watch Institute), and the sub-title reads:

    "Reversing the rise in human numbers is the most overlooked and essential strategy for achieving long term balance with the environment. Contrary to widespread opinion, it does not require population control.

    It occurs to me that China, an inventive society, seems to be first here too, at least in the modern sense, with their recent population control directives.

    If Robert Engelman is correct, however, "We" may avoid some of the pitfalls which have apparently plagued population control schemes of the past.

    More later.

    - Manysummits -



    Complain about this comment

  • 243. At 06:25am on 02 Oct 2009, simon-swede wrote:

    #241

    Mango, maybe your comment in #221 was rather premature and misrepresent what McIntyre was actually saying?

    You wrote:

    "The CRU are the providers of the tree ring data, which appears to have been deliberately cherry-picked to prove the MWP didn't exist."

    As McIntyre says (your link at #241):

    "I've tried to steer a careful line here. If you think otherwise, can you give me particulars as I don't wish to unintentionally feed views that I don't hold. It is not my belief that Briffa crudely cherry picked. "



    Complain about this comment

  • 244. At 07:39am on 02 Oct 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    agreed

    ...........

    anybody a little sceptical yet?

    Complain about this comment

  • 245. At 07:45am on 02 Oct 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    unadjusted temperature data missing

    reconstructions probably wrong due to divergence

    models garbage in garbage out?

    http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/climate-models-blown-away-water-vapor

    http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/more-water-vapor-woes-climate-modelers

    anybody shifting camps just a little?

    Complain about this comment

  • 246. At 07:47am on 02 Oct 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    evidence in the clouds?

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/09/the-2007-2008-global-cooling-event-evidence-for-clouds-as-the-cause/

    Complain about this comment

  • 247. At 07:58am on 02 Oct 2009, simon-swede wrote:

    "What Happened to Global Warming?"

    See: Science, 2 October 2009, Vol. 326. no. 5949, pp. 28 - 29

    The link is: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/326/5949/28-a

    Complain about this comment

  • 248. At 08:03am on 02 Oct 2009, simon-swede wrote:

    There has been some discussion here about 'science' and how it should or should not be conducted.

    In this week's issue of Science magazine there is a short article which explores the issues of what drives scientific discovery, and how can 'we' make it happen more effectively.

    See: The Coordinates of Truth, Gary J. Nabel, Science 2 October 2009: 53-54.

    Complain about this comment

  • 249. At 08:09am on 02 Oct 2009, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    MangoChutneyOKUK,
    You are taking a bit of a hammering over the data issue which has dragged on and on. It is taking everyone's mind of the real Earthwatch issues that are happening right now. At this moment, as everyone by now should be aware, people need clean water to drink and uncontaminated food. This is fact and not some data on a dodgy graph. Thank you again for your WATER link.

    Complain about this comment

  • 250. At 08:16am on 02 Oct 2009, simon-swede wrote:

    #245

    The authors of the later paper to which the second link refers simply conclude that the new information be used to validate and benchmark models.

    They write: "To this end and for future climate predictions, general circulation models have to be validated in their ability to correctly represent current hydrological cycles, including cloud processes, moist convection, and atmospheric transport, especially to higher latitudes. The combined information on the water vapor total column and its isotopic composition from space provides a crucial process-oriented benchmark for climate models."


    Complain about this comment

  • 251. At 08:19am on 02 Oct 2009, simon-swede wrote:

    Exelon, a major US electricity utility, has become the latest company to quit the US Chamber of Commerce because of differences over climate change. In recent months the Chamber of Commerce has opposed plans to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. On 28 September Exelon announced that it would not renew its membership of the chamber because of the negative climate position. This came a few days after similar withdrawals by two other large utilities: the Public Service Company of New Mexico and California's Pacific Gas and Electric.

    Complain about this comment

  • 252. At 08:23am on 02 Oct 2009, simon-swede wrote:

    There is a new computer-based tool called C-ROADS (Climate Rapid Overview and Decision-support Simulator), which translates complex climate modelling into more easily understandable predictions. Using data on greenhouse-gas emissions input by country or region over a given period, the simulator projects temperatures, sea level and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations to 2100.

    See: http://climateinteractive.org/simulations/C-ROADS/overview

    Complain about this comment

  • 253. At 08:26am on 02 Oct 2009, simon-swede wrote:

    Re #252, those interested in C-ROADS may wish to note that "this simulator will be posted in its 3-region form as freeware on the internet, can be used by non-modelers, and runs in less than .1 second on a laptop."

    Complain about this comment

  • 254. At 08:28am on 02 Oct 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @sensibleoldgrannie

    You are taking a bit of a hammering over the data issue which has dragged on and on.

    The temperature history is missing, the tree temperatures are suspect, CO2 is not able to raise tempeatures significantly, the climate models don't hold water (pun intended) and the AGW signature is still missing. I'm not sure how that shows I have taken a hammering

    Could you elaborate, please?

    And, do you not think this whole CO2 induced warming is diverting attention and resources from the real issues, not me pointing out the problems with the CO2 driven climate change hypothesis?

    Complain about this comment

  • 255. At 08:30am on 02 Oct 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @simon-sweded

    validation is something the models have so far failed

    Complain about this comment

  • 256. At 08:59am on 02 Oct 2009, simon-swede wrote:

    #249

    Grannie, concerning clean water, you may be interested in a briefing that was published in last week's (26th September) edition of the Economist "Financial innovation and the poor: a place in society".

    One of the new initiatives it describes is the Global Impact Investing Network (GIIN). The network’s 20 or so members include big banks (Citigroup, Deutsche Bank, JPMorgan), philanthropic institutions (such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation), the Acumen Fund, which invests charitable donations in firms supplying health care, clean water and so forth in Africa and India, and Generation Investment Management, a green-tinged fund manager co-founded by Al Gore.

    See: http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14493098

    Complain about this comment

  • 257. At 09:12am on 02 Oct 2009, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    As a citizen observer i have noticed that everything you say gets a heated response, but it appears obvious that you have found out something.

    Complain about this comment

  • 258. At 09:17am on 02 Oct 2009, simon-swede wrote:

    #254

    Compare this with your post #197 where you wrote that you accepted my contention that concern about AGW is not the reason why these other issues aren't receiving the funding they deserve.

    Complain about this comment

  • 259. At 09:40am on 02 Oct 2009, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    simon-swede
    Thank you for the link and I am sure this will interest a lot of people as well as myself. ; )

    Complain about this comment

  • 260. At 10:14am on 02 Oct 2009, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    considering computer simulations.

    One of the first things we had to do at university was to build a 20ft tower out of paper and pva glue. This was a lesson about:
    methods of gathering information
    project time keeping
    working in groups
    working with extremely limited resources to reach a high goal within a week
    practical application to achieve the goal

    The wizz kid used a computer simulation to design his 20ft tower (his group's tower collapsed in a soggy heap)

    A very brainy student talked about coiling the paper to make it stronger but his groups practical skills were not up to the mark and their tower failed.

    Our group 'gathered' the brainy student's information an included it in our own group's method of creating the tower. Our tower succeeded because we listened to the experts, looking at the structure of natural forms, constructed all of the components very carefully, and did not using computer models as a reliable information for real-life construction.

    I am not saying that computer models don't have their place but they do need to be regarded with caution.

    Complain about this comment

  • 261. At 11:50am on 02 Oct 2009, manysummits wrote:

    'Politics' & 'Business as Usual'

    Thanks for your analysis Richard. I've copied a few sections below.

    There is a difference between politics and true leadership. We have too many caretaker governments, and they are taking care of not the people, but of big business, justifying it in their own minds by thinking of the 'trickle-down' effect.

    I for one have had enough of trickles and food scraps.

    Meanwhile, on this blog we continue to play into the hands of the denial campaign.
    ---------

    US bill 'crucial' for climate talks

    ANALYSIS
    By Richard Black
    Environment correspondent, BBC News website:

    "So a 20% cut from 2005 levels by 2020 only amounts to a 4% cut from 1990 levels...

    For Kieran Suckling, executive director of the Center for Biological Diversity: "The Kerry-Boxer climate bill marks a baby step forward in the ever more urgent fight against climate catastrophe.

    "Leading climate scientists have called for reductions of approximately 40% below 1990 levels (by 2020) to avoid climate catastrophe..."

    "In August, 10 Democrat senators wrote to President Obama saying they would not support a bill that did not protect US companies from competition from other countries that were not incurring extra costs through limiting carbon emissions."

    "Another political nightmare confronts the bill's supporters: that Democrats will be forced to concede ground or time on the climate bill in order to pass a package of healthcare reforms, another flagship programme of the Obama administration."

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8283655.stm
    -------------------

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 262. At 1:26pm on 02 Oct 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @sensibleoldgrannie #257

    lol, i know what you mean! My English lets me down sometimes, due to a poor education, but i do my best to understand and convey correctly what i mean. I am essentially self educated and read as much as i can. Perhaps that's the reason why i generate so much "heated discussion" - I can't always explain myself clearly enough. I can accept that. What i wouldn't give for a good education.

    @simon-sweded #258

    I'm not sure I follow.

    @sensibleoldgrannie #260

    very sensible

    and i agree we need to listen to the experts, but experts are not always correct.

    Would your tower exercise be improved by asking the whizz kid and his computer to design the tower, based on the brainy students idea to make the paper stronger and then build using your practical skills?

    I realise in the new science of climate science, there aren't necessarily the correct skill set available, so wouldn't it be better to gather together the alarmist and sceptic scientists together to talk about temperature reconstructions, CO2 as a GHG, climate sensitivity etc, pull in the likes of McIntyre or Wegman and other none climate specialists, to check the statistical analysis of the climate scientists before announcing all the doom and gloom and spending vast sums of money without any kind of proof?

    Complain about this comment

  • 263. At 1:32pm on 02 Oct 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    manysummits #261 said:

    Meanwhile, on this blog we continue to play into the hands of the denial campaign.

    Some people like to say that AGW sceptics are just conspiracy theorists having a busmans holiday and accuse us of wearing tin foil hats. I think it may be time to pass the tin foil hoodie to more deserving causes.

    Complain about this comment

  • 264. At 1:59pm on 02 Oct 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @simon-swede #247

    From the article:

    Climate researchers are beginning to answer back in their preferred venue, the peer-reviewed literature.

    Sorry, Simon, I stopped reading after that

    Oh, I couldn't find the next article "The Coordinates of Truth, Gary J. Nabel, Science 2 October 2009: 53-54", do you have a link?

    Thanks

    Complain about this comment

  • 265. At 3:21pm on 02 Oct 2009, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    Mango,
    Don't doubt yourself or put yourself down unless you are being ironic. If you are researching independently, looking at all sides of the argument, writing and referencing your sources, you are having a good education.

    I come to this blog to educate myself more because education is life-long learning. Your idea, to take all of the approaches discussed and work together, is the only way forward out of this gridlock. New ways of thinking, combining and mixing once cherished bastions of pure science and specialism have to give way to a more eclectic style.

    I do not propose to give data myself because I do not know enough about the subject and I do not want to give false information. However, I will listen and read all of what you all have to say and so will many others like me.

    Complain about this comment

  • 266. At 5:02pm on 02 Oct 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @sensibleoldgrannie

    I'm lucky because i'm working in a university, so i do have access to the internet and some science papers. Like you, i find some contributors a good source of education even when i disagree with them, because they make me question myself and what i have understood about the papers i've read, although so far not enough to make me think AGW is real.

    I do get frustrated with posters who try to preach to other posters, but clearly don't understand the science behind AGW, but it's a free world and may free speech live a long and fruitful life.

    Have a good weekend, grannie

    Complain about this comment

  • 267. At 6:37pm on 02 Oct 2009, simon-swede wrote:

    Mango, in answer to your questions

    #262

    In your post #197 you said that you agreed with me that AGW wasn't the reason that these things weren't been funded. Then you turn round in #254 and say that the "whole CO2 induced warming is diverting attention and resources from the real issues". It can't be both!

    #264

    The article "The Coordinates of Truth" appears on pages 53 and 54 of the October 2nd edition of Science. I don't believe I can post the link here as it is not a free access article.

    For someone who keeps on complaining because you think that others don't read the links you post, it is somewhat ironic to see that you gave up on the Science editorial after the first sentence! Aren't you curious to know what you are missing?




    Complain about this comment

  • 268. At 10:55pm on 02 Oct 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @simon-swede #267

    "diverting attention and resources" doesn't always means funding, but i understand what you are saying

    To start am article by throwing in an uncalled for attack on sceptics doing the job that science should be doing for itself speaks volumes Simon, especially considering the peer-review process has allowed real clangers to get through

    Complain about this comment

  • 269. At 11:20pm on 02 Oct 2009, manysummits wrote:

    The Anthropocene

    It's officially the weekend here in Calgary!

    I'm at the library, and have just printed off a color copy of Paul Crutzen's 2002 'Nature' article in which he published his belief that we might well call the last two and a half or three centuries "The Anthropocene."

    - 'Nature', "Geology of Mankind"; vol 415; 3 January 2002; p 23.

    Being a geologist myself, I was surprised and pleased to see the title of this 'concept' piece!

    There is a paragraph in this Nobel Prize winner's article which bears strongly I think, on the population issue:

    "Fossil-fuel burning and agriculture have caused substantial increases in the concentrations of ‘greenhouse’ gases — carbon dioxide by 30% and methane by more than 100% — reaching their highest levels over the past 400 millennia, with more to follow. So far, these effects have largely been caused by only 25% of the world population."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Crutzen
    ----------------

    Note how quickly China and India ... are catching up.

    It has occurred to me that rational thinking may be the principal dynamic that has gotten us to this point. It occurs to me that rational thinking may be considered 'profane', in one sense - in that it is 'outside the temple,' where people have always gathered to contemplate the eternal mysteries, or to practice what Aldous Huxley has called the 'perennial philosophy.'

    Since Robert Pirsig's "Church of reason" doesn't appear to be working, despite the science, perhaps it is time to simply follow our instincts, and 'do the right thing'?

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 270. At 11:26pm on 02 Oct 2009, grumpy-mike wrote:

    Hi all, as you will see I am new to this but I came across a blog from an earlier Richard Black article which stirred me to action.

    Rossglory, Blog #101 30th. August
    hey mangochutneyuk, i can't see this going anywhere.
    let's just say you understand it all and are happy to carry on pumping trillions of tonnes of a known greenhouse gas into the atmosphere until such time as you have cast iron evidence that it's causing a problem.
    i, on the other hand, would rather not (despite some considerable upheaval to our current knackered old culture).
    maybe we can agree on that (not gonna hold my breath though).

    This contains the essence of what I consider to be the perpetual debate on this topic.

    Cast Iron Evidence!???

    Having spent some time in research, I was led to believe that everything was theory until such time as it was proven and that there are strict rules about acquiring proof.

    Within the context of those rules there is no “cast iron evidence” to prove that man’s activities are having a harmful effect on the climate (of which I have absolutely no scientific knowledge).

    On the other hand, there is no concrete evidence to prove that we are having no effect!

    Both arguments (discussion) are based on what the Law would call, “circumstantial” evidence and both parties arrive at the table with heaps of that!

    Since it will be impossible to prove this either way “beyond any shadow of doubt” by any appropriate experimentation that satisfies the rules, the debate will continue ad infinitum. Of course, like the “snake oil” experiment, we could continue to pump out trillions of tonnes of gas, mainly carbon dioxide until there is no more fossil fuel available and just see what happens. Not very good science!

    Like Rossglory, I don’t think that’s a good idea. My reasoning is based on some very simple science I learnt at school. We didn’t have computer modeling then and for this, it wasn’t necessary.

    Methane is the cleanest fossil fuel and for every ONE tonne of it that we burn we extract FOUR tonne of oxygen from the atmosphere and pump FIVE tonne of pollutant back. (Similar figures for all the fossil fuels) Nature of course has means to reverse this cycle but Nature is under pressure and is losing the battle.

    Apart from that, a very interesting discussion forum but as a former colleague of mine used to remind me….”May you live in interesting times” …is in fact an old Chinese curse!


    Complain about this comment

  • 271. At 07:06am on 03 Oct 2009, simon-swede wrote:

    #268

    Mango, I can't see where you find any "uncalled for attack on sceptics" in the sentence you quote from the article: "Climate researchers are beginning to answer back in their preferred venue, the peer-reviewed literature." If that's an attack, how do describe some of the insinuations and attacks which appear in the blogs you regularly give as links?

    The Science editorial begins with a fairly accurate description of the very types of questions you regulalry post and urge us to read, when it observes:

    "The blogosphere has been having a field day with global warming's apparent decade-long stagnation. Negotiators are working toward an international global warming agreement to be signed in Copenhagen in December, yet there hasn't been any warming for a decade. What's the point, bloggers ask?"

    It's the same sort of question you and others who share your views regularly post on this site, often but not always - in my opinion - with little of any substance to back them up.

    The remainder of the article introduces and provides links to susbtantive articles of recent research on aspects of climate science relevant to this question. You didn't read this bit, yet you keep on asking 'where are the answers'? Some are there, but only if you look.

    Scientific peer review isn't perfect but it is a good way of enhancing quality through checking submitted manuscripts for possible errors and misunderstandings before an article is accepted and published to a wider audience. It is a quality control tool. Blogs where the author is their own editor have no such checks. I know which of these I see as a more credible and reliable source of information.

    Complain about this comment

  • 272. At 08:08am on 03 Oct 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    Good morning Simon,

    "Climate researchers are beginning to answer back in their preferred venue, the peer-reviewed literature."

    My English may not be perfect, but come off it, Simon, we all know what that sentence means. It's similar to MP's saying in the house of commons "The Honourable Gentleman for Blahville is being a little economical with the truth", which translates as "The lying bar steward opposite, thinks we believe anything that comes out of his mouth as long as he can look at is through those weaselly eyes"

    I believe McIntyre is intending to publish his results, assuming it passes peer review. Do you think the author will withdraw his remark once the paper is published?

    Does anybody think this is a story the BBC should have published and are they doing a disservice to the public by not publishing?

    I'll try to read the article later today

    Complain about this comment

  • 273. At 08:15am on 03 Oct 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @grumpymike #270

    if you have any kind of evidence to support CO2 being the driver of global warming, please present it, but please don't include evidence such as "ice is melting, therefore it must be AGW", because that isn't even circumstantial evidence

    btw there are experiments being conducted to show global warming may be natural - there is observations being recorded by the likes of Christy etc which show climate sensitivity is low, not high as assumed by the IPCC, there is the CLOUD experiment, there is the observed data from clouds, which shows the opposite of the IPCC's beliefs, there is the observed data to show water vapour doesn't behave the way the climate models tell us it does

    want me to go on?

    Complain about this comment

  • 274. At 08:19am on 03 Oct 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    Simon

    I've just realised I can't access the article in #247 until i go to work on Monday, i'll try to respond around lunchtime

    Complain about this comment

  • 275. At 08:31am on 03 Oct 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @grumpymike

    Roger Pielke Senior Research Scientist, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO and Professor Emeritus, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, a believer in AGW, although not necessarily the CO2 part, has this to say about the IPCC:

    The 2007 IPCC reports (and associated CCSP reports) selectively chose research papers to present and ignored peer reviewed papers which conflicted with their conclusions. The IPCC structure has a small group of lead authors who dictate the focus of each chapter, as well as what research to cite. In the November 27, 2005 issue of EOS, the news report “Meeting Updates Progress of U.S. Climate Change Program”there is a quote by Antonio Busalacchi, Professor and Director of the Earth System Science Interdisciplinary Center at the University of Maryland;

    “Busalacchi…called for the inclusion of a wider range of scientists, including international scientists, in developing these reports. In addition, he warned that some small scientific communities had become ‘incestuous’ with report authors reviewing their own work.”

    This in bred arrangement permeates the climate assessment reports and leadership of climate science professional organizations (e. g see also http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/01/13/protecting-the-ipcc-turf/). With respect to the IPCC, it managed by a relatively small group of individuals who are using the IPCC process to control what policymakers and the public learn about climate on multi-decadal time scales.


    http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/

    His blog is a very good read for alarmists and sceptics alike

    Complain about this comment

  • 276. At 08:48am on 03 Oct 2009, Jack Frost wrote:

    The McIntrye bombshell has now hit the Financial Post.

    http://www.financialpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=2056988

    Complain about this comment

  • 277. At 1:33pm on 03 Oct 2009, manysummits wrote:

    Climate change hikes in Alps

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8288355.stm
    ------------

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 278. At 1:43pm on 03 Oct 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    apparently you arrive at Grindelwald by bandwagon ;)

    Complain about this comment

  • 279. At 2:22pm on 03 Oct 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    and now it seems a Finnish Professor who is not a sceptic on AGW has written a piece condemning the politics involved in AGW

    I put immediately forward a thesis that I'm glad to expose to public criticism: when later generations learn about climate science, they will classify the beginning of 21st century as an embarrassing chapter in history of science. They will wonder our time, and use it as a warning of how the core values and criteria of science were allowed little by little to be forgotten as the actual research topic — climate change — turned into a political and social playground.

    Later he says:

    Another example is a study recently published in the prestigious journal Science. It is concluded in the article that the average temperatures in the Arctic region are much higher now than at any time in the past two thousand years. The result may well be true, but the way the researchers ended up with this conclusion raises questions. Proxies have been included selectively, they have been digested, manipulated, filtered, and combined, for example, data collected from Finland in the past by my own colleagues has even been turned upside down such that the warm periods become cold and vice versa. Normally, this would be considered as a scientific forgery, which has serious consequences.

    The criticism by McIntyre and ClimateAudit needs to be taken seriously. RealClimate of Mann & co is mainly making fun of it in the latest post. It may well be in the long run that this is shooting oneself in the foot.



    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7272#comments

    Complain about this comment

  • 280. At 5:20pm on 03 Oct 2009, manysummits wrote:

    \\\ To understand and protect our home planet ///
    (former National Aeronautics & Space Administration mission statement)

    "I have always written for three reasons: the admittedly quixotic and presumptuous mission of trying to educate my fellow North Americans to the complexities of the Mideast and South Asia; my lifelong, unrelenting battle against all types of propoganda, disinformation, and lies; and my attempts to speak for those who have no voice."

    - Eric Margolis, in "American Jihad" (2008)
    -------------------------------------------

    It occurs to me that there is much in Mr. Margolis statement that applies to some of the bloggers on this site, myself included.

    I've been blogging around Richard Black's virtual campfire for some ten months now. My original gut feeling was that the Anthropogenic Global Warming denialists, some of them anyway, were part of a professional disinformation campaign.

    I overruled my instincts, and discussed climate science with them.

    Now, having come to 'know mine enemy', I return to my instinctive self.

    Through a combination of tone and manner, of choice of blogging name, and certain imponderables, I have intellectually caught up with my instantaneous impressions with regard to the denialists.

    I remember a blogger, it may have been 'Roland Gross', telling us to beware the denialist campaign, and their ways.

    I now second this warning.

    Apologies to 'Roland' if I remember incorrectly.

    - Manysummits, B.Sc., in Calgary -

    Complain about this comment

  • 281. At 5:32pm on 03 Oct 2009, manysummits wrote:

    In his first and only inaugural address, on January 20, 1961, John Fitzgerald Kennedy spoke of the common enemies of mankind:

    "tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself"

    http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres56.html
    ----------------------------------------

    And in his "Commencement Address at American University in Washington,
    June 10, 1963", he spoke of what unites us:

    "...our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal."

    http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/JFK061063.html
    ---------------------------------------------------

    Be like the Apache, and: think - for - our - selves

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 282. At 6:20pm on 03 Oct 2009, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    manysummits

    think-for-our-selves

    If I follow this advice my thinking says:
    easy, cheap oil is running out
    governments need a good excuse to get their populations to be more frugal
    governments need a good excuse to get other governments to be more frugal
    governments have got themselves into difficulties over past imprudent financial investments
    governments can't afford to buy as much of the hard-to-get oil
    massive deforestation to supply the rest of the world with cheap goods has got to stop because the rain forests are the lungs of the planet and they are rapidly disappearing
    countries have got to learn to make do with less cheap imports because that is part of the problem because cheaper= less-safe regulation, more environmental pollution
    water and waste solutions have not been properly developed in LED's causing more pollution
    oil industry products appear to be highly polluting in whatever form they are processed.
    the world has been lazy and not developed more sustainable sources of energy when it had the chance
    everyone is looking for a scapegoat
    etc etc
    sigh! ; (

    Complain about this comment

  • 283. At 10:36pm on 03 Oct 2009, manysummits wrote:

    To sensibleoldgrannie #282 :

    May I offer an opinion?

    1) Easy, cheap oil has already run out.

    2) As former US Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson once said:

    "It is not the function of the government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Jackson
    ----------------------------------------------

    We have been used and abused - and we have allowed this to happen.

    Instead of blaming someone - let's change someone - ourselves.

    Then all will be well.

    We all want to be part of something larger than ourselves - to feel 'at home in the universe' (can't remember who said this), maybe:

    http://www.fogcityjournal.com/wordpress/2009/06/29/a-tribute-to-thomas-berry-1914-2009-prophet-of-the-ecozoic-era/

    And despite valiant attempts, secular philosophy has made little impression on most.

    Who are we, why are we here, and where are we going??

    But some phrases stand the test of time:

    "A house divided against itself cannot stand." [Matthew 12:25]
    -------------

    As for the lungs of the planet - the rainforests are only one, and perhaps not the most important:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis
    -------------

    To add injury to insult, it is more than likely that because of our poor diet and views towards the raising of children, we have been physically impaired from conception, many or most of us, and prevented from attaining full adulthood at puberty and shortly afterwards.

    There is no such thing as a teenager - that is an invention, and a very poor invention.

    As for our societies - in my studies of history it is clear to me that most hierarchial civilizations fail, and this failure can only be explained to my mind by considering that the people who constituted the mian mass of these civilizations were either consciously or unconsciously resentful of their leadership, be they sun-kings or democratically elected officials, and dissatisfied with their lot in life.

    The trigger for many of these societal dissolutions turns out, quite surprisingly, to be climate change. But that is only the last straw. Before that the ground was prepared - and then - of a sudden - the emperor is dead - or has no clothes - or whatever quaint expression one wishes to express this shift in thinking.

    We are very near that transition point.

    In the Eric Margolis book I am currently reading (American Raj) - to catch up on politics and take a break from climate and the limits to growth, I came across a phrase uttered by a Muslim warrior of God, from Afghanistan:

    "We have nothing...except for our Din, our faith. The Franks [Westerners] do not understand that they cannot defeat a people who have nothing, nothing except faith and honor."

    I relate strongly to this. I once read a powerful book on the Afghanistan of the Soviet Union times - "Dust of the Saints," and am quite sure that Mr. Margolis has got it entirely right.

    "Faith and honor," terms almost unknown these days.

    "Where is your heart!?", the great Chiricahua Apache medicine man Geronimo shouts to his comrade in the American movie "Geronimo, an American Legend."

    Indeed, as we politely and intellectually discuss the destruction of our home planet:

    - Where is our heart? -

    Complain about this comment

  • 284. At 00:31am on 04 Oct 2009, grumpy-mike wrote:

    Oh dear, I do appear to have been less than clear in my comments and trodden on some sensitive toes in the process. Happily I slept on it and have since read some excellent further comments.

    Think for yourself.

    Anyone who relies on other peoples' thinking is not thinking for themselves. In my experience no matter how "expert" a person somewhere appears to be, particularly when they carry a heap of letters after their name, there is always another "expert" with an equally impressive array of letters after their name, who categorically contradicts the first. I term this "intellectual escalation".
    Now it appears we are divided into two "gangs" (shades of Wost Side Story here) the "alarmists" and the "sceptics", (why is it we feel the need to paste labels onto each other?) shouting defiance at each other...."My evidence supported by my experts is better than yours!"
    How unproductive, hence my agreement with Rossglory. That kind of debate is going nowhere. Nowhere that is except for round and round in circles.

    I tried to point out that I am neither for nor against AGW. I certainly offered no evidence of any nature to support or deny either hypothesis and I would be appreciative of people not trying to put words in my mouth.

    What really concerns me as I pointed out with my schoolboy science (which is readily accepted by anyone who has studied chemistry at school, whether or not they have any fancy titles before their name or letters after) is the following.

    When you burn fossil fuels you take a large amount of oxygen (which we rely on for life) out of the atmosphere and replace it with an even larger amount of carbon dioxide (which may support plant life but doesn't support human and animal life!) In addition we usually pump out other pollutants like sulphur dioxide (leading to acid rain) and nitrous oxides not to mention other particulate pollutants.
    We then expect nature to repair this damage to our atmosphere but the measurements show that nature is not keeping up (Carbon dioxide levels are on the increase)

    So, remembering Manysummits' timely warning to read up on "photosynthesis" (another branch of science universally accepted) lets take a brief moment to travel way back in time........in fact about one to two billion years.

    As I understand this period, please correct me if I'm wrong, the atmosphere was heavily laden with carbon dioxide, unfit for human consumption you may say, and Nature by the process known as photosynthesis was busy transforming that atmosphere into one that would be fit for human consumption.I suggest that this was the source of our fossil fuels that we are now consuming at a vast rate while destroying Nature's means of remedying the process all in the name of "Progress!"

    Now, I certainly am not suggesting that we are on the verge of self annihilation yet but we are slowly heading in that direction!

    That is why I agree with Rossglory, I certainly consider the increased burning of fossil fuels "not a good idea".

    No doubt the label "Alarmist" is now firmly cemented in place in some peoples minds.

    Please note, in all that last pontification, not one mention of AGW.




    Complain about this comment

  • 285. At 09:36am on 04 Oct 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    I've been blogging around Richard Black's virtual campfire for some ten months now. My original gut feeling was that the Anthropogenic Global Warming denialists, some of them anyway, were part of a professional disinformation campaign.

    oh dear

    Complain about this comment

  • 286. At 09:38am on 04 Oct 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    Be like the Apache, and: think - for - our - selves

    and when we do, we are accused of being paid disinformation campaigners

    go figure

    Complain about this comment

  • 287. At 1:06pm on 04 Oct 2009, manysummits wrote:

    What do the "oh dear" boys think?

    Is there a paid disinfromation campaign as regards AGW? Tell us, pray tell, what you know about it, and what your thoughts are concerning this matter?

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 288. At 3:15pm on 04 Oct 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    you're the one who seems to think so, manysummits

    i know many climate scientists are receiving huge sums of money to fund research to prove AGW. Is that what you mean?

    http://joannenova.com.au/2009/07/massive-climate-funding-exposed/

    Complain about this comment

  • 289. At 3:48pm on 04 Oct 2009, jr4412 wrote:

    grumpy-mike #284.

    "How unproductive... That kind of debate is going nowhere. Nowhere that is except for round and round in circles."

    thanks for that, a timely reminder; here, as elsewhere, we see plenty of debate and analysis -- no problem, after all, talk is cheap.

    but where are the constructive proposals for alternative policies/behaviours?

    Complain about this comment

  • 290. At 3:58pm on 04 Oct 2009, jr4412 wrote:

    MangoChutneyUKOK #288.

    interesting link, carbon trading is of course another one of these dodges to avoid implementing real changes to our flawed ways of doing "business".

    Complain about this comment

  • 291. At 4:26pm on 04 Oct 2009, manysummits wrote:

    No, that is not what I mean.

    When I say something, I try and avoid confusion.

    What I said was:
    -----------------

    287. At 1:06pm on 04 Oct 2009, you wrote:
    What do the "oh dear" boys think?

    Is there a paid disinfromation campaign as regards AGW? Tell us, pray tell, what you know about it, and what your thoughts are concerning this matter?

    - Manysummits -
    ----------------

    What I received was another question, instead of an answer - denialist/disinfromation tactic #435, as outlined in the manual of obfuscation and half-truths.

    I've highlighted the question, and await the "oh dear" boys answers.

    It was a rather simple question, I thought.

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 292. At 4:48pm on 04 Oct 2009, manysummits wrote:

    Let's explore further:

    "Climate Cover-Up",

    by James Hoggan with Richard Littlemore (2009)

    http://www.desmogblog.com/climate-cover-up

    Please note the commentary by:

    1) DAVID SUZUKI [1]
    2) LEONARDO DICAPRIO
    3) NEVE CAMPBELL
    4) LESTER BROWN [2]
    5) JAMES E. HANSEN [3]

    [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Suzuki
    [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lester_Brown
    [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen
    ---------------------------------------------

    As with many popular movements (AGW denial), there will be a small core of paid professionals, and a large contingent of zealous 'wannabe's'.

    Thinking - for - one's - self does not mean pretending to a mastery of atmospheric physics & chemistry, of geolgic history, and of advanced mathematics and computer-modelling.

    Thinking - for - one's - self may very well mean deciding who to believe, and whom to trust - in my opinion, of course.

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 293. At 6:58pm on 04 Oct 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @manysummits #291

    What I received was another question, instead of an answer

    No, you received an answer followed by a question asking if that was what you were looking for.

    denialist/disinfromation tactic #435, as outlined in the manual of obfuscation and half-truths.

    There's a manual! Wish I'd known earlier!

    Could I ask why you want the "oh dear" boys to answer your questions, but you don't want to answer questions I have put forward earlier in this thread?

    All the best
    Mango
    Thinking for myself

    Complain about this comment

  • 294. At 9:14pm on 04 Oct 2009, manysummits wrote:

    Yes.

    "Thinking - for - one's - self does not mean pretending to a mastery of atmospheric physics & chemistry, of geologic history, and of advanced mathematics and computer-modelling."

    - post #292, by manysummits
    ----------------------------

    Nice wiggling on your non-answer!

    There is no obligation on either of our parts to answer questions. As I explained on another thread, a week or two ago, I have satisfied myself on your ability with regards climate science, and I found no further point in discussing science with you. This applies to many of your denialist bloggers as well.

    Your only intention, and objective, is to provoke dialogue, so that the appearance of debate or discussion is taking place.

    I have also satisfied myself over some ten months of blogging that very few of the denialist bloggers are interested in either discussion or debate, only in the "appearance" of same.

    As for your wiggle - I humbly request that you, MangoChutneyUKOK take the time to answer the following question, now posed for the third time:

    Is there a paid disinfromation campaign as regards AGW? Tell us, pray tell, what you know about it, and what your thoughts are concerning this matter?

    Hint!

    "Climate Cover-Up",

    by James Hoggan with Richard Littlemore (2009)

    http://www.desmogblog.com/climate-cover-up

    Please note the commentary by:

    1) DAVID SUZUKI [1]
    2) LEONARDO DICAPRIO
    3) NEVE CAMPBELL
    4) LESTER BROWN [2]
    5) JAMES E. HANSEN [3]

    [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Suzuki
    [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lester_Brown
    [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen
    ---------------------------------------------

    - Manysummits -




    Complain about this comment

  • 295. At 00:41am on 05 Oct 2009, manysummits wrote:

    To jr4412:

    Yes - constructive thought and possible action plans!

    I have won, I think, a victory of sorts over the denial lobby, by understanding and then using their own tactics against them.

    But it is a hollow victory, and I am not satisfied.

    In John Steinbeck's novella "The Pearl," set in Baja California, he speaks repeatedly of "The Song of the Family," and this is part of the reason why I blog - to fight for truth and justice, on their behalf, and for their future.

    But I cannot forget the hard won lessons from my past - that one must remain true to oneself in order to achieve a true and lasting victory.

    - Let's move on to higher ground -

    Complain about this comment

  • 296. At 02:36am on 05 Oct 2009, jr4412 wrote:

    manysummits #295.

    "But it is a hollow victory, and I am not satisfied."

    understandable, debating with MangoChutneyUKOK is reminiscent of debating with yeah_whatever.

    "- Let's move on to higher ground -"

    poor choice of phrase I think, rather, let's develop "..constructive thought and possible action plans" on how to create the level playing field we so desperately need.

    we ought to reconvene on 'pratar'!

    btw, the "Climate Cover-Up" link you provided is quite interesting, but is this really your highest priority? is frustration/anger getting in the way?

    Complain about this comment

  • 297. At 07:32am on 05 Oct 2009, simon-swede wrote:

    Mango #288

    You claim that you "know many climate scientists are receiving huge sums of money to fund research to prove AGW".

    Yet even the very obviously biased link you give in support of this claim acknowledges that the funding is provided for a range of things, listing "policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, foreign aid, and tax breaks". It then goes on to say that this breaks down as "$32 billion for climate research—and another $36 billion for development of climate-related technologies."

    It is rather a leap of faith to jump from that to your conclusion that there is millions being paid out to "prove AGW".

    A genuine sceptic might actually look at the breakdown and see if there was any hard evidence for bias in the allocation of the funding first. And of course, if most of the research does indicate that AGW is real, this is not in itself proof that the funding is being channeled to prove it!





    Complain about this comment

  • 298. At 08:23am on 05 Oct 2009, JunkkMale wrote:

    I have won, I think, a victory of sorts over the denial lobby

    Well, it is a variation on 'the science is settled', I guess, which has proven so effective in developing constructive thought and a spirit of conciliation so far, and through attrition if nothing else almost all others do indeed seem to have already left the field and... 'moved on' already.

    As one keen to find effective ways to make the future of Planet Earth better for my kids I'd be more interested in honing persuasive skills to win over those perhaps not in such entrenched positions such as those on Planet ... Pratar?

    I have had the privilege of staying the course and reading views from all (often happily self-confessed 'sides', though how an issue this complex can have any so clearly defined by their defenders is beyond me). Interesting fact, and worthy opinion has abounded.

    But decrying one's 'opponents' rather than overcoming their points does come across as distracting at best, and no matter what one's views on their arguments this can though simple human nature err one to sympathy. Perhaps a point to bear in mind?

    As is, in so doing, creating a tribal comfort zone where you end up only communing with those who agree with you. That is a bubble which can expand a fair way, but can often find itself deflated easily too.



    Complain about this comment

  • 299. At 10:57am on 05 Oct 2009, jr4412 wrote:

    JunkkMale #298.

    "..interested in honing persuasive skills to win over.." & "..decrying one's 'opponents' rather than overcoming their points.."

    if the debate is rational, yes, however, not one of us is in possession of all facts and the issues do provoke strong emotions; reasoned arguments often fail in such a situation. furthermore, at least one of the 'opponents' is already of the opinion that: ".. intention, and objective, is to provoke dialogue, so that the appearance of debate or discussion is taking place." (#294)

    "..tribal comfort zone.."

    as Mango pointed out in #212, this blog isn't the place to discuss all the pertinent matters, hence the mention of 'pratar' -- shorthand for the site(s) created by davblo2 (#77) to allow free and wide-ranging discussion.

    anyway, thank you for this thoughtful post.

    Complain about this comment

  • 300. At 11:35am on 05 Oct 2009, manysummits wrote:

    If there is a paid and biased lobby whose mandate is to promote disinformation and confuse the public, then this is no distraction, but rather a criminal-like activity, and perhaps the real thing.

    Jr - you thank "JunkMale" for his post - I see his blogging name, and the good guy/bad guy ploy, used extensively to extract information and in this case, to create again the illusion of informed debate.

    That would be an instinctive assessment.

    How can you prove it?

    Not easily, which is the advantage the denial lobby has.

    "Climate Cover-Up" has some pretty high-profile people supporting and endorsing it, and is written by an 'ad-man'. It takes one to know one.

    We are thus operating at a continuous disadvantage while discussing AGW. Note how virtually nothing is ever said by them on any other topic!

    Despite some pretty interesting information in the 'Planetrary Boundaries' articles, not a word.

    So - supposing they were real bona-fide sceptics. Are they so single minded they forget the other synergistic sub-systems which are putting us all at risk?

    I think not - discussing them would distract from their real purpose, which is focussed on climate and the energy business.

    Note how the attempt is made to indicate that the discussion was 'ad-hominum.' It most certainly was not! I wrote it, and I know it was not.

    These people are engaging in disingenuous disinfromation, and it is they who say "oh dear." That is an ad-hominum. I turned it upon them, as I said, and it doesn't feel right. They use it all the time in various ways, habitually.

    This campaign, to give it credit, has resulted in a Copenhagen Conference apparently going nowhere, and as Richard Black has pointed out in his fine article 'Critical Climate', the United States, home of big oil, is effectively doing very little of consequence.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8283655.stm

    We know who is on side in AGW - virtually every national academy of science in the world.

    Is the public suicidal?

    I think not.

    But they are susceptible to promotion and advertising, and these guys are good - very, very good.

    Time to put them in jail - not talk to them.

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 301. At 2:05pm on 05 Oct 2009, JunkkMale wrote:

    299. At 10:57am on 05 Oct 2009, jr4412

    You are more than welcome. I think Voltaire may be proud of both of us, though you may be surprised how much we might be in agreement on matters of science. I have just become more concerned with how it gets shared, and the effects this can have on the public perception. Sorry I did not make the connection with the content from a link in a post a fair way back.

    Hence my replying to your post in the spirit of engagement, whilst not seeing much value in addressing in detail any more those who don't help their own cases by their own words, and also tending to prove the points I was trying to make.

    No matter how much some might wish it, I am am not a 'they', and am uncomfortable with the notion of being stuck in a camp, much less a jail, for having an opinion. Which is a view, IMHO, unlikely to garner the environmental 'doers' I am proud to be part of much support, if only by association, from the wider public.

    If I may so presume, I might also suspect you are groaning inwardly now, too. You make great points, and more power to you elbow, but I fear I am not prepared to be represented exclusively by those blinded by emotion and blinkered idealism to the balancing values of pragmatism and realism... if one is seriously, genuinely committed to making a positive difference.

    Especially to the point of articulating, in writing, for all to see: 'It's my way, or else'. History does not suggest this to be a productive avenue to extol. And I would hate to find this forum become 'members only' if only by virtue of who dominates most or longest.

    My only hope is that I am not indeed unwittingly part of a plot, and by creating grotesque standpoints in seeming support of one 'cause' for the likes of me to question, the intent is in fact to undermine those more moderately making their cases. Cases I am more often than not sympathetic to. But not to the extent of the restriction of free speech.

    That is too complex, and devious for me to really worry about. So I will just continue to ask questions and offer opinions when they occur in the spirit of gaining knowledge and trying to reach views.

    That is, while I am allowed to.



    Complain about this comment

  • 302. At 2:07pm on 05 Oct 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @simon-swede

    Simon, It looks I am being distracted from reading the article you posted in an earlier post, but I have printed it and will try to read this evening. In the meantime it looks like I have to answer manysummits again.

    @manysummits #294

    "Thinking - for - one's - self does not mean pretending to a mastery of atmospheric physics & chemistry, of geologic history, and of advanced mathematics and computer-modelling."

    - post #292, by manysummits
    ----------------------------

    Nice wiggling on your non-answer!


    Even taking into account my poor English, that doesn't seem like a question. However, I will attempt to answer your statement.

    I am not pretending anything, manysummits, I started asking a simple question that you and others have still, so far, been unable to answer. The question was "Outside of a laboratory, is CO2 able to raise the temperature significantly?".

    Now if you knew the answer to this, you would have been able to reply "yes", which is, of course, the correct answer, and doesn't need a mastery of atmospheric physics & chemistry, of geologic history, and of advanced mathematics and computer-modelling to be able to say yes. It just needs a little reading and understanding. You see the physics behind CO2's ability to raise the temperature have been known about for a long time. A doubling of CO2 does indeed raise the temperature by 1C. It's agreed and proved.

    Aha! I hear you shout, at last you have admitted CO2 is capable of raising the temperature. Yes, I do and I have never said it doesn't, although I have pointed out adding more CO2 gives a diminishing return as the absorption bands are almost saturated. Again no mastery of the universe required, just a little reading.

    What's important is the feedbacks or climate sensitivity as it's known. The IPCC tell us climate sensitivity is high based on calculations, but observational evidence and calculations tell us it's low. Again, no mastery, just reading, but you have to read both sides to decide which is the likeliest explanation, not stick with the side that you personally believe in for what ever reasons you may have.

    Personally, I would go with the observational evidence.

    I have satisfied myself on your ability with regards climate science, and I found no further point in discussing science with you. This applies to many of your denialist bloggers as well.

    Is that based on your understanding of the science, personal knowledge of my abilities or belief?

    Your only intention, and objective, is to provoke dialogue, so that the appearance of debate or discussion is taking place.

    My intention is to show CO2 cannot be responsible for raising the temperature significantly.

    I have also satisfied myself over some ten months of blogging that very few of the denialist bloggers are interested in either discussion or debate, only in the "appearance" of same.

    In my case, and I think in other cases, you are clearly wrong. I listen to what you say, I read your links (ok, not all of them) and I respond. I answer your questions and point you in the direction of papers which show cO2 is not able to significantly raise the temperature. You have told us you don't understand the science behind global warming. If you are not interested that's fair enough, but to than say I am only here to give the appearance of debate beggers belief.

    As for your wiggle - I humbly request that you, MangoChutneyUKOK take the time to answer the following question, now posed for the third time:

    Is there a paid disinfromation campaign as regards AGW? Tell us, pray tell, what you know about it, and what your thoughts are concerning this matter?


    I have answered giving you details of funding for research into AGW.

    In which direction are you looking? Do you mean the $23,000,000 given by Exxon Mobil over 10 years when they did try to to influence thinking or the $79,000,000,000 that the US government has provided since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, foreign aid, and tax breaks? (Refer to Simons post #297 for breakdown). And that is by the US govenment alone!

    What evidence exists to show CO2 induced AGW? Heres a hint:

    Zero

    @manysummits #295

    I have won, I think, a victory of sorts over the denial lobby, by understanding and then using their own tactics against them.

    I really don't understand why you think there is some kind of "denial lobby" at this blog. Surely if people like me are being funded by Big Oil, we would choose bigger venues than this one (no disrespect intended Richard, I actually like reading some of your articles and enjoy this blog).

    @jr4412 #296

    poor choice of phrase I think, rather, let's develop "..constructive thought and possible action plans" on how to create the level playing field we so desperately need.

    Perhaps the level playing field could be created when balance is returned to this debate and sceptical climate scientists receive a small fraction of the funding being given to pro-AGW scientists?

    @simon-swede #297

    You claim that you "know many climate scientists are receiving huge sums of money to fund research to prove AGW".

    $32 billion is a lot of money for climate research, don't you think?

    @junkkmale #298

    Pratar is manysummits, davblo2 and jr4412 home for their "May Day Declaration"

    @jr4412 #299

    as Mango pointed out in #212, this blog isn't the place to discuss all the pertinent matters,

    Should read:

    "as Mango pointed out in #212, with regard to UN reform this blog isn't the place to discuss all the pertinent matters"

    @manysummits #300

    If there is a paid and biased lobby whose mandate is to promote disinformation and confuse the public, then this is no distraction, but rather a criminal-like activity, and perhaps the real thing.

    Criminal-like activity? Nuremburg style trials on the agenda then?

    What about colleagues of Prof. Korhola, who is quoted as having said:

    Another example is a study recently published in the prestigious journal Science. It is concluded in the article that the average temperatures in the Arctic region are much higher now than at any time in the past two thousand years. The result may well be true, but the way the researchers ended up with this conclusion raises questions. Proxies have been included selectively, they have been digested, manipulated, filtered, and combined, for example, data collected from Finland in the past by my own colleagues has even been turned upside down such that the warm periods become cold and vice versa. Normally, this would be considered as a scientific forgery, which has serious consequences.

    What should we do in this case? Or should we have double standards?

    We are thus operating at a continuous disadvantage while discussing AGW. Note how virtually nothing is ever said by them on any other topic!

    I don't have time to comment anywhere else, I'm to busy trying to understand this debate! And anyway, I thought this was the most important debate of our time?

    Despite some pretty interesting information in the 'Planetrary Boundaries' articles, not a word.

    Despite all the questions I have posed about CO2 etc and McIntyres findings on the proxies, not a word from manysummits.

    Time to put them in jail - not talk to them.

    Is that with or without trial?

    Mango

    Thinking for myself

    Complain about this comment

  • 303. At 2:57pm on 05 Oct 2009, JunkkMale wrote:

    301. At 2:05pm on 05 Oct 2009, you :
    And I would hate to find this forum become 'members only' if only by virtue of who dominates most or longest.


    Sadly, I now discover, a tad too late for that.

    299. At 10:57am on 05 Oct 2009, jr4412:
    hence the mention of 'pratar' -- shorthand for the site(s) created by davblo2 (#77) to allow free and wide-ranging discussion.

    302. At 2:07pm on 05 Oct 2009, MangoChutneyUKOK
    Pratar is manysummits, davblo2 and jr4412 home for their "May Day Declaration"


    Interesting venue. And ironic when some of the last few posts from some quarters seem to be obsessed with conspiracies and pre-prepared group-thinks, funded or otherwise, and making some pretty heavy accusations with dire warnings attached.

    Still, enough to make me more than circumspect about taking part here 'freely' again, and leave it to those who demand one is either with them... or 'else' in posts that seemingly sail through moderation and acquire a sheen of BBC approval. Almost makes Jo Abbess seem like David Bellamy.

    Now, was that the plan, or has it backfired? And for whom? Only time will tell. And I wonder if Mr. Black and others possibly qualified in the BBC have a view on the current state of scientific debate?

    Complain about this comment

  • 304. At 6:59pm on 05 Oct 2009, simon-swede wrote:

    A change of pace, and tone... a musical interlude anyone? I wonder if one can post links to YouTube here?

    [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

    If not, then there is a link on the following page:

    http://tcktcktck.org/stories/campaign-stories/beds-are-burning-brings-celebrities-together-support-tcktcktck-and-climate



    Complain about this comment

  • 305. At 7:22pm on 05 Oct 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @simon-swede #271

    Simon

    As promised I've read the short article in Science entitled "Whatever Happened To Global Warming". The article starts by saying "The blogosphere has been having a field day with global warming's apparent decade-long stagnation" and I accept the global temperatures have dipped, but that is meaningless in climate terms - climate always changes and this particular decade may be a remnant of the unusual El Nino. I don't recall having ever said I think the cooling is significant and I don't think I have ever said the warming was significant either.

    What do you think has caused the globe to cool?

    The next section essential describes tweaks to the climate models to simulate the reality of what has happened.

    What do you think this means?

    "In 10 modeling runs of 21st century climate totaling 700 years worth of simulation, long-term warming proceeded about as expected: 2C by the end of the century. But along the way in the 700 years of simulation, about 17 separate 10 year intervals had temperature trends resembling that of the past decade - that is more or less flat"

    Also what do you think the comment from Lean and Rind means?

    "But unlike the Hadley Centre's model-based analysis, this assessment attributes a good deal of climate of climate variability to variability in solar activity. That's because most models can't translate solar variability into climate variability the way the actual climate system can"

    Finally I accept peer-review isn't perfect, this is why I have said it would be a good idea to include people like McIntyre or a statistician to review the statistical analysis of any temperature reconstruction to ensure it is robust and not open to question. You will recall Wegman made the same point when criticising Manns first hockey stick.

    Complain about this comment

  • 306. At 7:49pm on 05 Oct 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    As i have stated many times, I do think global warming is real. I do think man has some responsibility (land use etc), but blaming CO2 for global warming is simply untenable. There is no evidence to support this belief

    Complain about this comment

  • 307. At 7:50pm on 05 Oct 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    and just to be clear, i mean there is no evidence to support man made CO2 emissions being the cause of global warming lol

    Complain about this comment

  • 308. At 11:40pm on 05 Oct 2009, manysummits wrote:

    "Climate Cover-Up"

    307. At 7:50pm on 05 Oct 2009, MangoChutneyUKOK wrote:
    and just to be clear, i mean there is no evidence to support man made CO2 emissions being the cause of global warming lol
    -----------------------------------------------------


    "Human activities increasingly influence the Earth’s climate (IPCC 2007a) and ecosystems (MEA 2005a). The Earth has entered a new epoch, the Anthropocene, where humans constitute the dominant driver of change to the Earth System (Crutzen 2002; Steffen et al. 2007). The exponential growth of human activities is raising concern that further pressure on the Earth System could destabilise critical biophysical systems and trigger abrupt or irreversible environmental changes that would be deleterious or even catastrophic for human well-being. This is a profound dilemma, because the predominant paradigm of social and
    economic development remains largely oblivious to the risk of human-induced environmental disasters at continental to planetary scales (Stern 2007)." [1]

    "Fossil-fuel burning and agriculture have caused substantial increases in the concentrations of ‘greenhouse’ gases — carbon dioxide by 30% and methane by more than 100% — reaching their highest levels over the past 400 millennia, with more to follow. So far, these effects have largely been caused by only 25% of the world population. The consequences are, among others, acid precipitation,photochemical ‘smog’ and climate warming." [2]

    [1] http://stockholmresilience.org/planetary-boundaries
    (see pdf version of 'full scientific article')

    [2] "Geology of mankind", by Paul Crutzen (Nobel laureate)
    NATURE|VOL 415 | 3 JANUARY 2002 |www.nature.com

    I rest my case - or is it, the prosecution rests?

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 309. At 11:49pm on 05 Oct 2009, manysummits wrote:

    And just to be clear:

    "Anthropogenic climate change is now beyond dispute, and in the run-up to the climate negotiations in Copenhagen this December, the international discussions on targets for climate mitigation have intensified. There is a growing convergence towards a '2 °C guardrail' approach, that is, containing the rise in global mean temperature to no more than 2 °C above the pre-industrial level."

    "A Safe Operating Space for Humanity"
    "Nature"; 461, 472-475 (24 September 2009) | doi:10.1038/461472a; Published online 23 September 2009

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7263/full/461472a.html

    - Manysummits -

    PS: Of course, in your own way, you have accomplished your mission, having provoked a response. Any response will do, I am quite sure.

    Complain about this comment

  • 310. At 11:58pm on 05 Oct 2009, manysummits wrote:

    "The Anthropocene could be said to have started in the late eighteenth
    century, when analyses of air trapped in polar ice showed the beginning of growing global concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane."

    - Paul J. Crutzen
    http://www.mpch-mainz.mpg.de/~air/crutzen/

    Mango! - Why don't you forward your last two blogs, numbers 306 and 307, to Dr. Crutzen, and recommend that he return his Nobel Prize in Chemistry?

    Complain about this comment

  • 311. At 11:59pm on 05 Oct 2009, manysummits wrote:

    Mango - What does "lol" mean?

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 312. At 04:54am on 06 Oct 2009, jr4412 wrote:

    JunkkMale #301.

    ".. Voltaire may be proud of both of us .."

    appreciated, cheers.

    "If I may so presume, I might also suspect you are groaning inwardly now, too. You make great points, and more power to you elbow, but I fear I am not prepared to be represented exclusively by those blinded by emotion and blinkered idealism to the balancing values of pragmatism and realism... if one is seriously, genuinely committed to making a positive difference."

    yes, I was a little taken aback; re. idealism, I fear you're right there too, however, I also think that we should at least try to change the (unfortunate) reality of division, strife and war. true pragmatists can do without (better?), don't you agree?

    ".. the intent is in fact to undermine those more moderately making their cases. Cases I am more often than not sympathetic to. But not to the extent of the restriction of free speech."

    freedom of speech and expression are sacrosanct yes, at the same time we find ourselves in the curious position of not being listened to, or, as grumpy-mike (#270) puts it, we live in "interesting times" :-(

    in spite of MangoChutneyUKOK's contention that 'pratar' is exclusive (#302), I'd hope you can find the time/interest/energy to contribute; I think that, on the whole, you'll find your "fears" (#303) unfounded.


    manysummits #300.

    ".. you thank "JunkMale" for his post ... the good guy/bad guy ploy ... an instinctive assessment."

    occasionally, our instincts can fail us, I did (speed-)read through a selection of previous posts and found myself agreeing more often than not.

    "We are thus operating at a continuous disadvantage while discussing AGW."

    true, I think that perhaps the "A" in AGW is a stumbling block.

    "Note how virtually nothing is ever said by them on any other topic!"

    as you know by now this is what I cannot understand either.

    "Is the public suicidal?"

    no, but they (ie. the vast majority) believe in gods and afterlife and, for all I know, in fairies
    and politicians. you are right, we are "fighting" a lost cause (no reason to give up though).

    Complain about this comment

  • 313. At 08:17am on 06 Oct 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @manysummits #308

    "Climate Cover-Up"

    307. At 7:50pm on 05 Oct 2009, MangoChutneyUKOK wrote:
    and just to be clear, i mean there is no evidence to support man made CO2 emissions being the cause of global warming lol
    -----------------------------------------------------


    "Human activities increasingly influence the Earth’s climate (IPCC 2007a) ........[2] "Geology of mankind", by Paul Crutzen (Nobel laureate)
    NATURE|VOL 415 | 3 JANUARY 2002 |www.nature.com

    I rest my case - or is it, the prosecution rests?

    - Manysummits -


    Assertion is not evidence

    Case dismissed

    @manysummits #309

    I'm not interested in any old response that reinforces ill-conceived ideas, all I want is a single piece of empirical evidence to demonstrate AGW - That's not too much to ask for is it?

    @manysummits #310

    Again, assertion is not evidence

    @manysummits #311

    It means present some real evidence not conjecture, please

    @jr4412 #312

    Sorry old chap, I actually said "Pratar is manysummits, davblo2 and jr4412 home for their "May Day Declaration"

    No mention of exclusive there

    Complain about this comment

  • 314. At 10:47am on 06 Oct 2009, jr4412 wrote:

    MangoChutneyUKOK

    I'm heartened to see your enthusiasm for correctness (and for correcting others), and I agree, "Assertion is not evidence".

    lucky then that the assertion ("i mean there is no evidence to support man made CO2 emissions being the cause of global warming") was made by your good self (#307). :-)

    you are wrong also when saying that "lol" means "..present some real evidence not conjecture.." (#313).

    btw (and still on the issue of correctness), which question mark were you referring to in #231 ("I missed the “?” at the end of that last sentence..")?

    Complain about this comment

  • 315. At 11:28am on 06 Oct 2009, jr4412 wrote:

    simon-swede #304.

    I'm a bit wary of 'www.communicopia.com', the company behind the initiative. of another of their projects they say "Within a few short months, the simple Nothing But Nets website raised over 1 million dollars and helped get over 120,000 bednets to families in Africa."

    I remember watching an item on this subject (on UK TV, a couple of years or so ago) where the retail cost of the nets was given as under three dollars, that means approximately two-thirds of the donations never went to the intended recipients.

    Complain about this comment

  • 316. At 11:28am on 06 Oct 2009, grumpy-mike wrote:

    Like Junkkmale, I perceive this has become a two person party which is such a pity as I also perceive that both have highly commendable ideals. For my part I certainly don't intend to spend 10 months "blogging" on an issue. I once heard it said......quote...."When all is said and done, everything is said and nothing is done"
    Goodnight and God bless you all.

    Complain about this comment

  • 317. At 11:43am on 06 Oct 2009, manysummits wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 318. At 12:30pm on 06 Oct 2009, jr4412 wrote:

    manysummits #317.

    "This ruthless and immoral 'business as usual' group has then hired the PR Industry to promote disinformation as regards manmade global warming. Their techniques and expertise are well known, tried and true."

    not just climate change; remember, say, the 'Exxon Valdez' debacle? the list is long. but then again, to quote from a punk song ca. 1980: "business is important, business is white".

    re. tags: I try (and occasionally fail) not to get too hung up on such things. irony, sarcasm, nihilism even, are all undertandable, if unconstructive, responses to one's feeling of helplessness -- I suppose I ought to have used 'DownAndOutInTheUK' or somesuch instead of the alphanumeric.

    Complain about this comment

  • 319. At 1:19pm on 06 Oct 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @jr4412 #314

    lucky then that the assertion ("i mean there is no evidence to support man made CO2 emissions being the cause of global warming") was made by your good self (#307). :-)

    Assertion? There is empirical evidence to support my "assertion", real empirical evidence based on observation to show climate sensitivity is low, not high as calculated by the climate models. Where is the empirical evidence to support the notion that CO2 is the primary driver of global warming? Where is the anthropogenic global warming signature, we are told should be present?

    btw (and still on the issue of correctness), which question mark were you referring to in #231 ("I missed the “?” at the end of that last sentence..")?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/09/hus_talking_whos_listening.html#P86411512

    There should have been a question mark at the end of the sentence

    @manysummits #317

    I really don't know where you get the idea that I am part of some kind of AGW disinformation lobby - it almost borders on paranoia on your part. For the record, I am not and I have never received a single penny to help me inform my opinion on AGW - any offers will be gratefully accepted!

    Do I think there is a paid disinformation lobby? I have no idea, but clearly you will point me in the direction of your proof, which will probably be more of a link to some guy who wrote a book on the subject. Either way, I'm getting nothing. I just want the truth to explain this phenomena

    Now manysummits, I have clearly answered your question. Now will you please answer my questions?

    Will any of you look into the fundamental question of CO2 being the primary driver behind CO2 and present real empirical evidence or will the evidence you present always be "The ice melted so it mist be AGW"?

    Complain about this comment

  • 320. At 1:40pm on 06 Oct 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    I see the UNEP Climate Change Science Compendium has omitted the Hockey Stick on Page 5 and replaced it with another diagram.

    The original had been identified as being copied from Wiki not a peer reviewed document as climed by the UNEP.

    Complain about this comment

  • 321. At 3:13pm on 06 Oct 2009, davblo2 wrote:

    A "must see"...?

    Not Evil Just Wrong

    ...coming to a screen near you soon.

    Complain about this comment

  • 322. At 3:35pm on 06 Oct 2009, jr4412 wrote:

    davblo2 #321.

    would that 'Creation' had had such powerful "support".

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6173399/Charles-Darwin-film-too-controversial-for-religious-America.html


    MangoChutneyUKOK #319.

    thanks for clarifying #231.

    Complain about this comment

  • 323. At 3:51pm on 06 Oct 2009, JunkkMale wrote:

    Let's mix some sayings.

    'If a tree is chainsawed in the forest, and you are the only person to see it because you only tolerate total submission and have driven even those who may support you away, then you truly are King'.

    If alone, and hence powerless.

    Doesn't do the tree much good either, does it?

    Interesting way to allow blog to run. But not really very helpful to getting things done. IMHO. Unique, even.

    Sticks and stones may break my bones, but obsessing about blog names rather than arguing points will likely get the kind of attention one shouldn't seek.

    If you get my drift, mods:)

    Complain about this comment

  • 324. At 4:05pm on 06 Oct 2009, davblo2 wrote:

    jr4412: "Creation"

    "...according to a Gallup poll conducted in February, only 39 per cent of Americans believe in the theory of evolution."

    In words of MangoChutneyUKOK;...

    "oh dear"


    Complain about this comment

  • 325. At 6:36pm on 06 Oct 2009, Jensen wrote:

    Please, when will the truth of this money making scam be revealed?
    The Emperor has no clothes, the science isn't in and your hockey stick is broken.
    Now go and do something useful.

    Complain about this comment

  • 326. At 5:40pm on 07 Oct 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @davblo2 #324

    oh dear, indeed!

    I guess we can agree on some things

    Complain about this comment

  • 327. At 12:47pm on 24 Oct 2009, JunkkMale wrote:

    A tad O/T, by why have some subsequent threads 'closed for comments', at all sorts of odd (and even:) post number tallies, yet this one (for now) flies free as a bird?

    Complain about this comment

  • 328. At 9:00pm on 27 Oct 2009, astrocougarwoman wrote:

    Today, I came up with a great idea. Due to the inability for our government to spend money in a constructive manner towards turning america green, that we should do it for them. Groups, businesses, famous singers, actresses, whomever, can pick a city that they will be in charge of to turn green. Everyone will be supported by a company and they can decide what to name it; but each will be responsible to create the office, design the steps needed in the city or town of their choice to turn green asap. This would include, supporting people to walk, ride bikes, community travel to and from work, community gardens, medicinal gardens, mental support for changes, relocation help, building solar panels for homes, creating compost centers and individual compost sites, community horses for travel, and whatever else comes up to help people; the goal is to create communities that are self-efficient and green.

    anyways, this model can be created for the whole world. For people to pick towns and regions to turn green, help support to get off of fossil fuels, and create beauty everywhere. I think this would be the fastest way and really fun.

    So the start of this project would be to have a party to as many people and environmentalist or just sending a letter to them. Someone would be in charge of putting the town or city the groups or individual picks, and wa la, pretty soon the whole world will be green. EXCITING. hope all is well. dawn I twittered richard branson and Ashton Kutchner. not sure spelling. anyways, I am such a nobody so I don't know if anyone will listen to this idea that I think is super.

    Complain about this comment

View these comments in RSS

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.