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

COP15: Breaking a deal

Richard Black | 11:56 UK time, Thursday, 17 December 2009

So we're entering the final throes of this two-week conference - the end (supposedly) of a two-year process aimed at securing a new global agreement on combating climate change.

But as we've been reporting regularly over the last few days, things are pretty chaotic here. In procedural terms, a number of journalists here who've reportedly extensively on international summits on all kinds of issues say they've never seen anything like it.

Frankly, it's being made up as it goes along now.

Procedure apart, what divides the countries here?

One issue is emission cuts from developed nations still inside the Kyoto Protocol (that's all except the US). Developing countries are looking for at least 25% by 2020 - some would insist on 45% or more.

But the pledges so far are a lot less than that - a step-up of about one-third would be needed.

Deal-breaking potential? Four out of 10 - soundings suggest many developing countries could live with existing pledges if other elements of a package are ok. But could all of them - especially if they're unhappy about other things?

Developed countries have grave reservations about continuing with the Kyoto structure. But it appears that most are prepared to do so - at least for now - if it's the price of making a deal.

Deal-breaking potential? Two out of 10.

Everyone seems resigned to the fact that the US will not be inside the Kyoto framework. OK - so how are its emission pledges to be characterised, assessed, and monitored?

Hillary ClintonThe distinct vibe from the US is that it won't accept its pledges are legally binding unless China does likewise. "Not providing transparency is a deal-breaker for us," Hillary Clinton said at her news conference just now.

China, as it stands, won't countenance legally binding constraints on its emissions and it won't accept international verification.

That's partly because other developing countries don't want it either and China is staying with that joint line; but according to one negotiator here with experience of other issues, China never accepts international monitoring of any environmental commitment - including, for example, refusing to carry international observers on fishing boats to monitor compliance with fisheries regulations.

Japan has been equally strong on the need for legally binding restrictions on China.

Deal-breaking potential? Eight out of 10... though verification is perhaps something that could be "kicked into the long grass" and pursued bilaterally.

There's also pressure from developing countries for the US to raise its emissions offer... but there's a general acceptance among other developed nations that it can't at the moment for domestic political reasons. Would developing nations pursue this one? Not clear.

Deal-breaking potential? Two out of 10.

The financial picture is quite complex. Japan and the EU have both put forward pledges on "fast-start" finance for the developing world, and others are prepared to put smaller sums into forestry immediately. Sums in the order of $10bn per year for the period 2010-2012 could be available - if everything else here works out.

Lumumba Stanislaus Di-ApingAlthough developing countries have demanded more - $10bn is "enough to pay for the coffins" of "climate victims" in Africa, according to Sudan's Lumumba Stanislaus Di-Aping - if enough longer-term finance was pledged to satisfy them, would they take the current fast-start offer? Probably.

Deal-breaking potential? Three out of 10

On the longer-term finance - which means 2020 - the EU has calculated that 100bn euros will be needed per year. The US says $100bn - a world of difference. Both of those figures are considerably less than developing countries want, and less than UN agencies such as the World Bank and International Energy Agency have calculated as necessary.

There's also a simmering row about how the money should be provided. The West wants a significant proportion to come from levies on carbon trading and "innovative mechanisms" which don't actually exist yet - which is partly why developing countries want the majority to come from the public purse.

Deal-breaking potential: Seven out of 10, with the developing world likely to seek more certainty - although this could also be "kicked into the long grass".

All of this, of course, leaves aside the question of whether there will be anything for leaders to sign.

As I write, the process here is in chaos - the Danish prime ministers' office is said by all sources to be in "meltdown", without a plan of action and without the diplomatic experience and skills to concoct one in time.

The Danes have lost the trust of the developing world here, no doubt about it - and by extension, that taints the EU and the wider Western world as well.

Lack of trust? Now that's a real potential deal-breaker - 10 out of 10.

Comments

or register to comment.

  • 1. At 12:20pm on 17 Dec 2009, bandythebane wrote:

    Isn't it appalling that the developing countries have been hoodwinked into genuinely believing they have been harmed and that the developed countries somehow owe them a living.

    It will be very difficult to persuade them that this is untrue.

    Into the long grass until everyone cools down somewhat and looks a it all more rationally is by far the best option

    Complain about this comment

  • 2. At 1:00pm on 17 Dec 2009, minuend wrote:

    BALLBREAKER

    http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/16/iearussia-hadley-center-probably-tampered-with-russian-climate-data/

    Phil Jones to Michael Mann, 2004, "Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia."

    Complain about this comment

  • 3. At 1:02pm on 17 Dec 2009, Erik Bloodaxe wrote:

    "One issue is emission cuts from developed nations still inside the Kyoto Protocol (that's all except the US). Developing countries are looking for at least 25% by 2020 - some would insist on 45% or more.

    But the pledges so far are a lot less than that - a step-up of about one-third would be needed.

    Deal-breaking potential? Four out of 10 - soundings suggest many developing countries could live with existing pledges if other elements of a package are ok. But could all of them - especially if they're unhappy about other things?"

    Of course - the kleptocrats only want the "other elements" - that is the dollars, yen, euros and pounds. That's what they're there for (along with having a jolly good, CO2 producing, time and feeding their inflated sense of self-importance).

    Complain about this comment

  • 4. At 1:07pm on 17 Dec 2009, selfevidenttruths wrote:

    @Bandy: Yes I agree, well at least to some degree. A lot of the problems that the developing world are facing right now are down to bad governance and corruption, not 'climate change', for example, Zimbabwe. On the other hand trade between the rich and poor nations has long been imbalanced and we do have a responsibility to remedy that. We have also allowed a system to grow where countries are locked into a dependance on aid, again often exacerbated by corruption.
    As for monitoring and verification, well we have to have it. It would be crazy not too, and I can't see the US being able to sell anything less to its citizens back home. I am afraid if China wants to become a real player then it too will have to give up 'absolute sovereignty'
    From now on, I am afraid that every drought, monsoon, heat wave, etc, will be treated as if it is solely caused by AGW, and would have never happened otherwise. The current level of warming does just not justify this interpretation.

    Complain about this comment

  • 5. At 1:18pm on 17 Dec 2009, Gareth wrote:

    This is hardly surprising.
    In the months and years preceding this the politicians have done three things: Told devloping nations they deserve vast amounts of money, told big business there will be substantial opportunities to earn money and told voters things won't be too onerous.
    In response the developing nations are demanding more money, big business is taking advantage of the carbon credit wheezes and taxpayer subsidies to be had and voters are none too happy that their standards of living might have to fall substantially to pay for the other two things.
    The politicians have cried wolf to all three parties. All the politicians wanted was to be the centre of attention and they promised the earth to everyone to maintain that position. This is why they say although the science clearly isn't settled that must not prevent action being taken. The action they want isn't to solve the potential problems but to make the politicians look good.
    Hell, when the conference is falling apart and world leaders are saying 'we've got to come up with something, we can't go home empty handed' they are trying to make up policy on the hoof *just* to save face. That is not in the slightest bit rational.
    When did developing countries stop wanting free trade and start wanting subsidies instead? Free trade would sort out many of the issues in time, and without the need for micro-management from upon high by elected or more likely unelected officials. Free trade puts our money in the hands of developing nation producers by choice without a Government at either taking a slice of it to throw at their own pet projects or gerrymander votes. Then those countries at risk from climate change can afford clean technology and protective measures themselves.
    In the long term that would be good for African states with basket case Governments too - they would have to tax their own people for income than rely on handouts and their people would demand better Government in return. Our cost of living would fall so there would be less poverty in this country. Devleoping nations standards of living would rise with their rise in income and their populations would fall (richer populations have fewer children), easing the pressure of population without recourse to eugenics, warfare or limiting the number of children people could have. Gross and anti-libertarian solutions to over population I am sure you'd all agree.
    If Government subsidy is the answer you're asking the wrong question.

    Complain about this comment

  • 6. At 1:25pm on 17 Dec 2009, Sparklet wrote:

    "Not providing transparency is a deal-breaker for us," Hillary Clinton said

    Hmmm... now she knows how us sceptics feel about the 'science'.

    And look what we found out when we delved further....

    DISCREDITED HOCKEY STICKS

    HIDDEN DECLINES

    CHERRY PICKING

    ’REDISCOVERED’ MEDIEVAL WARM PERIOD

    TAMPERED DATA

    ’UNPRECEDENTED’ GLOBAL WARMING IN CONTEXT

    So for us taxpayers - "Lack of trust? Now that's a real potential deal-breaker - 10 out of 10"

    Absolutely!!!

    Complain about this comment

  • 7. At 1:30pm on 17 Dec 2009, selfevidenttruths wrote:

    New research from NASA:

    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/himalayan-soot.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 8. At 1:31pm on 17 Dec 2009, WAMO wrote:

    I do this again because the moderation of this took them a couple of hours (#180 Titanic)

    A nice site for everyone: Armagh Observatory

    for example:

    http://star.arm.ac.uk/climate/intro.html
    http://star.arm.ac.uk/press/2009/treerings_2009dec.html

    [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
    don't know but search for:
    AIR TEMPERATURES AT ARMAGH OBSERVATORY, NORTHERN IRELAND,
    FROM 1796 TO 2002
    C. J. BUTLER,* A. M. GARCI´A SUA´ REZ, A. D. S. COUGHLIN and C. MORRELL
    Armagh Observatory, College Hill, Armagh BT61 9DG, Northern Ireland, UK

    the last document give stemperatures from 1796 to 2002
    you can search the site for the temperatures upto december 2009
    you will see that the last decade has indeed been the warmest on record (in Armagh)
    I doubt however they match the temperatures of the medieval.

    BTW: no hockeystick





    Complain about this comment

  • 9. At 1:43pm on 17 Dec 2009, ghostofsichuan wrote:

    Thanks to the bankers the world is in a financial crisis. "Developed" countries, that means economically, not politically, are living on borrowed money so the idea of sending large amounts to other nations would seem a bit inapproprite to the people back home. The Emissions Tax is a revenue generater and that is why it is on the table, it would be the payment plan and of course funded through higher rates for the consumers. It is apparent that the political leadership is looking for a business deal as that is who they represent. The processes to deal with alternative energies development is hardly a topic while they develop a scheme to promote the continuation of the fossil fuels industry. Not until a crisis will anything get done and by then it may be too late. The developed countries are relying on all the damage being in the Southern hemisphere. The concentration of wealth and the influence it plays in the political systems will continue until the people in the individual countries undo the corruption that has diminished the individual to a comodity with no value other than producing and consuming.

    Complain about this comment

  • 10. At 1:53pm on 17 Dec 2009, silverfoxuk wrote:

    I am incredibly confused about climate change. One day I read some research which claims to show AGW is happening, then the next I read what appears to be research showing quite the opposite - for an example see below:

    Science & Public Policy Instutute: Open Letter to IPCC Chair
    [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

    How the layman is supposed to evaluate this is beyond me.

    Complain about this comment

  • 11. At 1:55pm on 17 Dec 2009, perspicuously wrote:

    When the UK is in massive debt and has no money, how exactly are we hoping to pay this much to developing countries?

    Complain about this comment

  • 12. At 2:00pm on 17 Dec 2009, Spanglerboy wrote:

    I mentioned in an earlier post that the next step in the debacle would likely be legal. See open letter from (the real) Lord Monckton and Senator Fielding to Chairman Pachauri

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/letter_to_pachauri.html

    penultimate paragraph reads 'We should be grateful for your response within 48 hours, failing which we shall be entitled to presume that you, the IPCC and the EPA – to whose administrator we are copying this letter – intend to conspire, and are conspiring, to obtain a pecuniary advantage by deceiving the public as to the nature, degree, and significance of the global surface temperature trend. In that event, conspiracy to defraud taxpayers would be evident, and we should be compelled to place this letter in the hands of the relevant investigating and prosecuting authorities.'

    I may have mentioned previously that Lord Monckton's claimed expertise is in the detection of fraud.

    Dont you just love a good pot-boiler!

    Complain about this comment

  • 13. At 2:16pm on 17 Dec 2009, EuroSider wrote:

    We hear the terms 'billions' if not 'trillions' of dollars banded about by these so-called delegates.
    Where is this money coming from?
    Where is it going?
    How will all this investment change the world?
    Yes....this conference needs to tackle global environmental issues....but it appears to be more about which governmnet can get the most dollars for doing.....?
    By all means lets have a successful conference, but then let us also get real.
    These delegates are only interested in making headlines for local consumption.
    If anyone thinks that once they leave they conference that any of them will put these plans into action and actually achieve something......then they are obviously delusional.

    Complain about this comment

  • 14. At 2:24pm on 17 Dec 2009, Jack Frost wrote:

    Conference theme song.

    Oh the weather outside is frightful
    But the fire is so delightful
    And since we've no place to go
    Let It Snow! Let It Snow! Let It Snow!

    It doesn't show signs of stopping
    And I've bought some corn for popping
    The lights are turned way down low
    Let It Snow! Let It Snow! Let It Snow!

    When we finally kiss goodnight
    How I'll hate going out in the storm!
    But if you'll really hold me tight
    All the way home I'll be warm

    The fire is slowly dying
    And, my dear, we're still goodbying
    But as long as you love me so
    Let It Snow! Let It Snow! Let It Snow!

    Complain about this comment

  • 15. At 2:28pm on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    " CHERRY PICKING"

    you mean like this:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/12/cop15_questions_about_sex.html#P89940225

    which had someone realise:

    "487. At 2:03pm on 17 Dec 2009, Jon Cooper wrote:

    #481; if you quote people out of context then you can make it appear that they have said anything you want"

    Complain about this comment

  • 16. At 2:28pm on 17 Dec 2009, petewibble wrote:

    Richard when can we expect some coverage from the BBC on the recent allegations from the Moscow Institute of Economic Analysis?

    If it turns out to be accurate that "The scale of global warming was exaggerated" (based on Russian temperature data) by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. Then surely that's a bigger story than this expensive get together in Denmark?

    If it's not accurate to say that the CRU cherry picked date from Russia then I'd expect the BBC to say so asap, given all the ongoing fuss from the recent CRU email scandal.

    Complain about this comment

  • 17. At 2:29pm on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "I may have mentioned previously that Lord Monckton's claimed expertise is in the detection of fraud."

    He certainly helps fraud being found:

    http://www.altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html

    !

    Complain about this comment

  • 18. At 2:42pm on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "I may have mentioned previously that Lord Monckton's claimed expertise is in the detection of fraud."

    I would also point you to this post on other things Monckton's claimed expertise on:

    http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/22430/Dishonest_Political_Tampering_with_the_Science_on_Global_Warming.html

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords_Act_1999

    (thanks to other posters for the above)

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/monckton_caught_making_things.php

    http://www.desmogblog.com/moncktongoes-postal-over-realscience-riposte

    Complain about this comment

  • 19. At 2:50pm on 17 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    i've been reading up on 'reditribution of wealth'. seems a pretty rubbish idea to me. i found this website:

    http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2008/Jasaycatastrophe.html

    (refering to the reason subprime disaster):
    The redistribution of wealth engineered by credit and equity derivatives is voluntary, for it is the result of every 'player' freely taking the risk he runs to earn some expected reward. Public opinion, the media and the authorities condemn this voluntary redistribution with horrified indignation. Involuntary redistribution by taxation, on the other hand, earns overt or at least tacit approval.

    the media do seem to be big on involuntary wealth redistribution by universal tax don't they?

    Complain about this comment

  • 20. At 2:56pm on 17 Dec 2009, Sparklet wrote:

    Re #15. At 2:28pm on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427

    Except I very much agree with those particular phrases and didn't attibute anything I said to them.

    Just as I agree that “SOMETHING IS ROTTEN IN THE STATE OF DENMARK”.
    It fits the situation very appropriately.

    Complain about this comment

  • 21. At 2:59pm on 17 Dec 2009, Sparklet wrote:

    I always find it very interesting that when AGW proponents don't like the message they try to decry the messenger - they “DOTH PROTEST TOO MUCH, METHINKS”.

    Complain about this comment

  • 22. At 3:01pm on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    The proper redistribution of wealth should be through 100% inheritence tax.

    If you're wealthy you will have given your children a leg up the poor will never have and you will do so ALIVE.

    By enabling inheritance (first FIVE MILLION dollars in the US is free of this tax!) of wealth you have the first generation be wealthy through action and ability. But to inherit you just have to be born to the right parents. This is the same problem Royalty have.

    And just by having money you can save money (if you don't need a mortgate, you don't have to pay the cost plus interest on a house). With money you can make more money (lend to someone who needs a loan for, say, a house).

    So the exceptional wealth creators become indifferent leeches with inheritance.

    100% inheritance tax is a fair way to remove unearned privilege and does not harm the next generation of the wealthy since they already have better opportunities. Lack of inheritance means they have to earn their continued privilege to pass on to THEIR children.

    Complain about this comment

  • 23. At 3:08pm on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    Funny how sparklet says that in #21.

    What with all the repeated "SHOW ME THE PROOF!" and "THAT'S NOT PROOF" and all the calamitous prophesying about how AGW is all a scam, it's all about political power, it's all a secret plan to put the west back into the dark ages.

    An awful lot of protest.

    Especially on the "COP15: Climate 'scepticism' and questions about sex" thread.

    LOTS of screaming and shouting and protesting there.

    But sparklet as "reality-sensitive glasses". Rather like Zaphod's pair of peril-sensitive, these ones block out anything he doesn't like to see.

    Complain about this comment

  • 24. At 3:08pm on 17 Dec 2009, D_H_Wilko wrote:

    I think episode 2 of the BBC series Earth Climate wars: fightback describes what is going on here. The sceptic/denier case here seems to have a similar strategy to the George Bush campaign memo written by Frank Lunz in 2002. mentioned in this program. Stir things up a bit(maybe by misquoting stolen Emails?). Make the science uncertain. Quite a few American S'k'eptics on this British Blog.

    Complain about this comment

  • 25. At 3:14pm on 17 Dec 2009, John OSullivan wrote:

    British Prime Minister, Gordon ‘Clown’ is at the Copenhagen Summit feverishly slack jawing and glad-handing as many foreign delegates as he can to bust the NATO (No Action, Talk Only) deadlock that has frozen out a snow-covered Copenhagen Summit. "I want a legally-binding treaty within six months," the clown says.
    Mr. Brown wants to melt away those square brackets that have plagued draft agreements all week. But it appears that in the wake of the Climategate revelations, Santa Claus and climate clauses will just have to stay square-bracketed for now. The fly in the ointment being those valiant sceptics, such as Lord Monckton, who has been seen braving the chilled air to interview Greenpeace foot soldiers. His YouTube videos are now a gnawing testament to the woeful ignorance of the eco-activists. That whiff of conspiratorial deceit has now reached the noses of African delegates whose dithering is likely to scupper a swift and binding legal agreement on the ‘clowns’ path to a new world order of global government. For the one-eyed Scotsman its all looking as fanciful as a Hans Christian Anderson fairytale.
    While a cadre of Soviet flag-waving communists and hand-wringing liberals shiver forlornly outside the Summit building back in Britain glum faces are also being worn on Nimby’s and concerned conservations. In the Welsh valleys they are still reeling at the prospect of the imminent destruction of thousands of forest trees to clear the decks for a new ‘green initiative’ subsidised by taxpayers. Apparently, a quarter of Wales’ largest woodland will soon be felled to make way for a wind farm with turbines standing almost as high as Blackpool Tower, it emerged last night. Conservationists are complaining that plans for Clocaenog Forest, in North East Wales, would see a vast swath of the woodland cleared to make way for up to 48 gigantic 145m or 475-ft-high turbines. RWE Npower Renewables, the company behind the 64 to 96megawatt (MW) scheme, admits the wind farm development area covers 1,463 hectares of the 5,000-hectare woodland – just under 30%.
    Retired teacher and conservationist John Morgan, who is also a member of the conservation group the Hiraethog Alliance, fears the scheme is just the latest that will ultimately see Wales turned into one huge wind farm. John says there are also plans for wind farms at Melin-y-Wig and Gwyddelwern, in North East Wales. “These are big machines and it would destroy one of Wales’ most beautiful natural assets and have a cumulative effect when you consider the other wind turbine plans for this area.”
    The forest is home to the largest population of red squirrels in Wales and as dedicated open access land is a favourite spot for ramblers. Red squirrels are fast becoming an endangered species as their habitats have more or less disappeared in southern Britain since being driven out by the more aggressive American grey squirrel. It’s political Darwinism at its most ugly and it seems that for mankind just as it is for nature, the bullyboys often hold sway. You couldn’t make this stuff up!
    “The whole of Wales is going to become a wind farm,” John laments as the juggernaut of climate fascism revs up the bulldozers before relentlessly pushing on.
    Carbon footprint of Copenhagen: 50,000 tonnes
    irony in this story: priceless

    Complain about this comment

  • 26. At 3:17pm on 17 Dec 2009, Sparklet wrote:

    Re #23. At 3:08pm on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427

    Many are condemned by their own words, or should I say 'rants'!!!

    Complain about this comment

  • 27. At 3:20pm on 17 Dec 2009, Kamboshigh wrote:

    #7
    NASA's new research, you mean they thought of a theory put it in a computer model and ran some wind patterns from the past 7 years to say glaciers are melting. Sur-real climate would love to destroy such poor science debunked across the bloggs with threats to editors etc.

    Complain about this comment

  • 28. At 3:24pm on 17 Dec 2009, Kamboshigh wrote:

    #18 the number with the mouth. Lord Monckton has certainly got you guys on the run. Your beloved railway engineer is in deep trouble with that one at UN HQ.

    Complain about this comment

  • 29. At 3:29pm on 17 Dec 2009, Sparklet wrote:

    24. At 3:08pm on 17 Dec 2009, DHWilko wrote:

    "...Stir things up a bit(maybe by misquoting stolen Emails?). Make the science uncertain..."

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Then I know you will appreciate the attached but echo the author's words that it is always best to go to the source and view the actual mails themselves!!

    SOME OF THOSE MAILS IN CONTEXT

    The actual mails can be viewed at

    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php

    you can even search on items of interest. Have fun!!

    Complain about this comment

  • 30. At 3:33pm on 17 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    @22
    firstly i'm no fan of the weak characters i've noticed among some of my acquaintences that imo stems from them getting everything on a plate, from birth.

    however what motive is there to succeed and become wealthy through hard work (and a little luck) if the government is going to steal it all from you?

    and on the flip side: these 2nd gen. wealthy are often (but not always) less than cautious with their money and end up returning far more of it to the economy than they might want.

    imo 100% inheritance tax would kill social mobility.

    Complain about this comment

  • 31. At 3:37pm on 17 Dec 2009, ghostofsichuan wrote:

    #19 Tears.....

    You and many others believe that the market is pure and corrects itself. The recent financial crisis seems to have had no impact on your thinking. The banks and financial industry used their political might to insure that the false or non-existent insurance scheme for mortgages did not beome regulated or more correctly exposed for what it was or wasn't. Your dreamy idea of market forces fails to take into account how business, big business, corrupts the political system to have advantages and the ability to manipulate markets and receive unfair tax advantages. I am often astonished that the Free Market folks remain naive after having your personal retirement accounts diminished by this process and then you are taxed to reward those who betrayed the public trust both in business and government. What history shows is that when wealth is concentrated in the few revolution follows. Maybe you haven't noticed but the banks and financial services that created the problems are doing very well while everyone else suffers. What is often presented as a conservative view, keeping government out of private business, is really using government to protect certain private industries to the disadvantage of other businesses and the people. You position is as far from reality as the liberals who think that segragation and lower standards for the poor by governments is good social policy. Copenhagen is a business deal for the fossil fuel business by governments..corruption on a grand scale. Because people are starting to realize this it has become harder for the governments to lie. Copenhagen is built on the idea that if people want a clean environment that they will need to pay for it individually and that the businesses that cause the pollution will not diminish their profits. This is not captialism or free enterprise it is about the corruption of governments by money. It is no different in countries where the "state" owns power production.

    Complain about this comment

  • 32. At 3:38pm on 17 Dec 2009, jazbo wrote:

    Humans have always had to deal with a changing cimate, even the Biased Beeb shows that today:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/north_east/8416600.stm

    So again, it comes back to the basic question, if its always been happening, why are we suddenly panicking now?

    The problem as highlighted by this article is that in the past, we just moved up the hill a bit. It is modern boundaries that now make that natural migratation impossible.

    This is further proof that man has been reacting to the melting ice of the last ice age for thousands of years, and the evidence that the current melting is anything more than a continuation of that process is, very simply, not settled.

    Complain about this comment

  • 33. At 3:44pm on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "“The whole of Wales is going to become a wind farm,” John laments as the juggernaut of climate fascism revs up the bulldozers before relentlessly pushing on."

    Lets check that. See if John is alarmist or not.

    http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap14/windfarm.html

    says that you get ~350 W/m2 (average wind speed in wales is 6kps)

    400TWh is the UK consumption.

    8766 hours in a year makes that 45GW power use.

    Divvy that by 350 and you get 130million m2, 130km2 or a 11.418 km square.

    Complain about this comment

  • 34. At 3:45pm on 17 Dec 2009, cleanasawhistle wrote:

    It is never too late! As the Oxfam climate change Copenhagen "Live" page remarks - failure cannot be allowed to happen – but the self-interest of rich countries has pushed negotiations to the brink of failure.

    Keep the pressure on at Copenhagen – there are still things you can do Here and Now.

    Complain about this comment

  • 35. At 3:45pm on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    Oh dear, you're ranting again, Sparklet.

    Complain about this comment

  • 36. At 3:47pm on 17 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    @32

    ghost: i have no faith in a totally unregulated market not to exploit basically everyone except the handful of people at the very top of the wealth pyramid. imo you're view of history and economics is a little slanted. Fredric Bastiat (french dude) wrote some great, common sense explanations of market forces and principles that are now sadly ignored by our overlords.

    off the topic of economics: have you read any Spinoza sir? i think you'd very much enjoy his works. he was an original proponent of the nature is god idea.

    Complain about this comment

  • 37. At 3:48pm on 17 Dec 2009, Tony Pugh wrote:

    I am thoroughly enjoying Dr Stewart programmes ( The Climate Wars) but I am sorry to say I felt that last night’s programme was not balanced enough and only reflected the views of the pro-IPCC consensus. I had hoped that he would have given a sceptic scientist the time to air a challenging viewpoint. It was disingenuous of him to broadcast what looked like a lame apology, with a quotation from Dr. Micheals saying at a Skeptic Conference that CO2 was partly to blame for the current warming, right at the end of the programme. There is not a sceptical scientist anywhere in the world that would disagree. John Tyndall established the absorptive energy power of water vapour and Arrhenius reported the effects of heat absorbing gases, including CO2 in the atmosphere back in the 19th century.
    All other things being equal a doubling of CO2 from preindustrial levels would produce a warming of something less than 1 degree. What is being challenged is the climate sensitivity to that warming, The IPCC climate models with positive feed-back mechanisms are amplifying that warming to alarming levels. With the oceans warming more water vapour is released and this of course is the most important constituent of the greenhouse gasses. I understand that the models have a constant relative humidity so therefore one has to assume that most of this extra water vapour will condense out as clouds. Certainly low level cloud would have a cooling effect as it would reflect sunlight and therefore act as a negative feed- back. It is this relationship that Dr. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama is examining and is the main subject of his work. In fact it was just yesterday that he was presenting a paper to the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco. “Feedbacks will determine whether the manmade portion of global warming ends up being catastrophic or barely measurable,” he is reported to have said.

    Data can be manipulated or cherry picked to show a conclusion that may well be political so I decided to construct my own temperature graphs from the world’s longest series of temperature recordings, namely the Central England Temperatures that provide thermometer readings since 1659. While I accept that this is a not a global record it is a register of genuine raw data and not an inferred or interpretive value which global average figures must be. Using that wonderful tool of Microsoft Excel I created a rolling 10 year average temperature graph from 1668 to 2009. I conclude from simple inspection, that the overall trend line shows that England, at least, has had global warming for the last 350 years and the increase of temperature observed in the latter half of the 20th century is not unique. It is only this period that the IPCC has stated in its 4th assessment report that “most of the global average temperature increase was very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations”. (The use of words like most and very likely is not very scientific). While on a basis of probability, the IPCC may well be right, but there is still an element of doubt and true unbiased scientific research should be allowed to continue without the hysteria that seems to accompany both sides of the climate debate.
    Perhaps we need to look at really relevant data such as the ocean temperatures from the 3000 world wide system of ARGO buoys that have now been operational since 2003. There is now talk of the oceans acidifying because of the excess of CO2 in the atmosphere. I find this hard to believe as the Oceans are a massive carbon sink that contains fifty times the amount of CO2 that is in the atmosphere. Surely there must be another cause. How about volcanic activity at the mid ocean trenches?

    Complain about this comment

  • 38. At 3:48pm on 17 Dec 2009, Maria Ashot wrote:

    Thank you for yet another pithy report, Mr Black: and for the truth.

    All the worst human traits are on display.

    A vivid picture of what brought us all to this pretty pass to begin with.

    A most compelling argument for why a serious, long-term change of course is essential, for everyone.

    "Can't do it" won't work anymore.

    The price of failure?

    Crop failures. Soaring prices for water. Water wars. Unchecked population growth compounded by a deepening health crisis as medical services breakdown further and further. The misery index goes through the roof. Any regional conflict becomes the pretext that some desperate demagogue requires to make one last-ditch attempt to empower his followers at the expense of neighbouring nations.

    Lots of things can be repackaged, using nuance, semantics, all kinds of tactics. "Kicking things into the long grass" doesn't last many years, anyway: pretty soon we get there. "Verification" can be redefined as "data collection" and "host nations" can be praised for their "hospitality and generous sharing of expertise" instead of being treated like a rogue state being inspected by hostile forces...

    Every great & novel undertaking began with graceful, small-scale testing-of-the-waters. All-out global cooperation is something that we have never actually attempted before.

    I thought Gordon Brown gave an excellent speech, truly; the remarks thus far reporting from China's Premier Wen give us room to hope: they are very constructive.

    I wouldn't blame the Danes too much: this could never have been an easy task to take on, for anyone. It has been envisioned for quite a while as The Meeting upon which all would turn. There seem plenty of people there for the specific purpose of helping it fail.

    It sounds like a match-up between the Danish football team and the rugby masters from New Zealand: only no one told the Danes it was going to be rugby -- they prepared for soccer.

    What I know from events I have attended is that at the crunch, a few characters get it done. Lots and lots of delegates with credentials mill around and act overwhelmed by the "complexity" of the thing: it is a way of masking how far away they are from the real deal-making & final decisions.

    Let us see what the leaders achieve. It will be interesting to see if they are worth their salt: and who.

    China owns America's debt. That is also a factor not to be discounted.

    Someone will emerge from this Conference crowned with the laurels of Leadership. Speak to you then!

    Complain about this comment

  • 39. At 3:54pm on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "This is further proof that man has been reacting to the melting ice of the last ice age for thousands of years, and the evidence that the current melting is anything more than a continuation of that process is, very simply, not settled."

    Here's a ditto.

    There is plenty of evidence.

    The plain science says we should be, if anything, cooling. Never in the past has coal and oil burned in the gigatons since the PETM. Unlike the PETM (which was volcanic and we can't stop them) this one is because of industry (and we CAN stop industry using fossil fuels).

    Complain about this comment

  • 40. At 3:55pm on 17 Dec 2009, Maria Ashot wrote:

    No. 1, bandythebane: Except that sometimes it actually is true:

    In the 20th century, a developing country (Russia) was extensively harmed by a developed country (Germany): it fought two wars to safeguard European civilisation. And in a sense, yes, the EU & Nato do owe Russia and Russians their living.

    Fortunately, the Russians tend to be fiercely independent and have never submitted any invoices for their contribution to the war effort, nor asked for any reparations.

    Yet.

    So bite your tongue.

    Developing countries do bear considerably blame for their own mistakes & dysfunctionality. However, the picture is not quite as simple as your summary of it.

    I support the concept that the most advanced nations, with the best-educated & most enlightened populations, with the power elites that still place some value on some eternal human virtues (as opposed to mere Greed & Posturing) should be the ones that emerge as Leaders from this Conference, for this most challenging of situations ever faced by humankind.

    Alas, the American educational system has been profoundly degraded in recent years, even to the university & professional science level.

    And you can thank Bush-Cheney for that.

    Complain about this comment

  • 41. At 4:01pm on 17 Dec 2009, selfevidenttruths wrote:

    @kamboshigh 27: Actually it is research which backs up sceptic arguments that CO2 is not the sole factor:

    "Based on the differences it’s not difficult to conclude that greenhouse gases are not the sole agents of change in this region. There’s a localized phenomenon at play." Lau

    Complain about this comment

  • 42. At 4:02pm on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "imo 100% inheritance tax would kill social mobility."

    How?

    The Son of Bill Gates Sr would still have gone to a prestigious college. His mother would still have been on the United Way group including an IBM employee. He would still have had the connections that he could leverage into a Billionaire Software Magnate.

    If your parents are wealthy enough to get you into a good school, you don't have to wait for inheritence to make you wealthy.

    If you can only make it in life with unearned wealth falling to you, your social mobility is HARMED with inheritance: you SHOULD fall down. But after a certain wealth, you don't need to work.

    Ever seen the movie "About a boy"? How about "Jeeves and Wooster"?

    Unearned Wealth.

    So how will 100% inheritence tax harm social mobility?

    If the taxes went on improving school education throughout the country (lower teacher-pupil ratio is the obvious benefit of funding) then not only does the privileged child get to go to a highly regarded school for a good education that they can exploit to attain wealth and position, the poor child who would otherwise be left to get a poor education from the closes school he's allowed in, is (even though going to the same school) getting a better education. If that poor child had the ability, they now have the OPPORTUNITY to show it.

    Not as good an opportunity as the son of a company executive (networking), but better than he had before.

    Just think of it: how many EXCELLENT badminton players were born in a school that couldn't afford badminton classes for sports lessons and therefore didn't get a chance to find their talent?

    Mobility IMPROVES.

    But feel free to explain how this is wrong.

    Complain about this comment

  • 43. At 4:05pm on 17 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    is anyone else slightly worried about the prospect of greeny rampage and rioting if they don't get what they want out of this sham conference?

    something about toys and prams comes to mind.

    Complain about this comment

  • 44. At 4:05pm on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "I felt that last night’s programme was not balanced enough and only reflected the views of the pro-IPCC consensus."

    See:

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

    "False balance is a term used to describe a perceived or real media bias, where journalists present an issue as being more balanced between opposing viewpoints than the evidence actually supports."

    or this

    http://www.seattlepi.com/opinion/248046_mtrahant13.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 45. At 4:09pm on 17 Dec 2009, selfevidenttruths wrote:

    @U14260427: Have you read this?

    http://www.withouthotair.com/Contents.html

    It is going to be more difficult than we think.

    Complain about this comment

  • 46. At 4:10pm on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "Actually it is research which backs up sceptic arguments that CO2 is not the sole factor:"

    Oh dear.

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg1_report_the_physical_science_basis.htm

    Chapter 9 Understanding and Attributing Climate Change

    Note how the skeptical points are raised in there in sections like

    "Uncertainty in the Spatial Pattern of Response"

    Hardly a great conspiracy to hide any uncertainties if they go and make a chapter called "Uncertainties", is it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 47. At 4:11pm on 17 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    maria:

    check your history (this was from 5 mins of googling):

    The eastern victors demanded payment of war reparations from the defeated nations, and in the Paris Peace Treaty, the Soviet Union's enemies—Hungary, Finland and Romania—were required to pay $300,000,000 each to the Soviet Union. Italy was required to pay $360,000,000, shared chiefly between Greece, Yugoslavia, and the Soviet Union. The much larger reparations from occupied Germany to Russia were to be paid not by goods or money but by the transfer of capital goods, such as dismantled manufacturing plants. A separate reparation was 3,000,000 German former prisoners of war, as well as many civilians, that were forced to labor in Russia. Some did not get to return until well into the 1950s.

    they ransomed german POWs!

    Complain about this comment

  • 48. At 4:13pm on 17 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    42. At 4:02pm on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    there seems to be no point arguing this with you. lets just agree to disagree shall we?

    Complain about this comment

  • 49. At 4:14pm on 17 Dec 2009, minuend wrote:

    From the New Scientist: Data Offsetting

    "IGNORE the unwarranted claims that hacked emails from the University of East Anglia (UEA) in the UK expose human-made climate change as a conspiracy. Away from those headlines, an equally intense battle is taking place over access to the data showing global warming is real.

    It reached a peak earlier this year, when the UEA's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) turned down freedom of information (FOI) requests for its temperature records. Last week, the UK's Met Office attempted to quell the growing anger at its lack of openness by "releasing" data from 1700 weather stations around the world. The move was a token gesture. The Met Office has admitted to New Scientist that those figures were already publicly available through the World Meteorological Organization.

    Much data remains under lock and key. It is tied up in confidentiality agreements with the governments that provided it. The Met Office and the UK government say they are now seeking permission to publish it. What they have not yet publicly revealed is that under a confidentiality agreement between the Met Office and the UK's Natural Environment Research Council, a portion of the UK's own temperature measurements is only made available to "bona fide academic researchers working on agreed NERC-endorsed scientific programmes". Why? So that the data can be sold privately. "We have to offset our costs for the benefit of the taxpayer, so we balance that against freedom of access," says David Britton, a spokesman for the Met Office."

    The Met Office's 'value-added' datasets have more added-value than first imagined. They are being delibrately engineered, manufactured and privately sold to an already established AGW science market.

    "Data offsetting", as it is known, allows climate-change researchers to buy ready made outcomes.

    That is the current state of climate science, it can be bought of the shelf.

    Complain about this comment

  • 50. At 4:16pm on 17 Dec 2009, Dempster wrote:

    I’m a self employed working Joe, husband and father of three.

    And I don’t know whether CO2 causes climate change or not.

    However I do know that the rise in taxation over the last 100 years has been accompanied by a rise in CO2 emissions.

    And they want to raise an extra £100 billion in taxes.

    That would tend to suggest that CO2 emissions will have to rise if they want the extra tax.

    In any event all I want to know is how much are they going to try and stiff me for.


    Complain about this comment

  • 51. At 4:18pm on 17 Dec 2009, Kamboshigh wrote:

    Selfevidenttruths totally agree it has nothing to do with CO2. I posted earlier to remind Richard to do his cut and paste job on it, with that intention. I wonder if GISS are pulling the plug on Hansen and Schmidt.

    That is an easy thing to fix if it is actually true, and does not need 100billion euros a year.

    Complain about this comment

  • 52. At 4:25pm on 17 Dec 2009, Maria Ashot wrote:

    "Copenhagen is too important to fail" -- China.

    Complain about this comment

  • 53. At 4:29pm on 17 Dec 2009, Spanglerboy wrote:

    Tony Pugh #37

    I liked your post. Not a rant in sight. In the letter I referenced in my earlier post, along with the name of Monckton, which did cause a bit of hysteria in the ranks, we are told the following -

    'On St. George’s Day, 2009, Lord Leach of Fairfield asked Her Majesty’s Government –
    “... whether the rate of increase in global mean surface temperatures between 1975 and 1988 was similar to the rates of increase observed between 1860 and 1880 and between 1910 and 1940 ...”
    Lord Hunt of King’s Heath replied –
    “Observations collated at the Met Office Hadley Centre and the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit indicate that the rate of increase in global average surface temperature between 1975 and 1998 was similar to the rates of increase observed between 1860 and 1880 and between 1910 and 1940 (approximately 0.16 C° per decade). This observation has no implications for our policy on anthropogenic warming. Little can be deduced from relatively short trends in the temperature record taken in isolation from the overall picture. ...”'

    Now I am not sure to what extent we can accept the validity of data from the Hadley Centre and CRU, but subject to that caveat, it does seem that her Majesty's Government are aware of the fact that the warming at the end of the 20th century was not unusual.

    Somewhat at odds with Gordon and Ed urging us over the cliff, but that's politics for you.

    Note I think there is a typo in the question from Lord Leach in that it should refer to '1975 and 1998' not 1988. The response refers to 1998.

    Complain about this comment

  • 54. At 4:32pm on 17 Dec 2009, Dempster wrote:

    And there’s another question that troubles me;

    How do you square the need for less CO2 emissions and the constant call for economic growth?

    And if we have to stop economic growth to stop emitting more CO2, how do we pay the huge debt mountain off?

    Complain about this comment

  • 55. At 4:32pm on 17 Dec 2009, selfevidenttruths wrote:

    U14 ...: I think you misunderstand me, but there is probably little point in correcting you. However if I can return to your post 33: Are you suggesting that the UK's entire energy needs can be supplied from am 11 km square filled with wind turbines? In which case I think anything you have to say I shall ignore from now on.

    Read this:

    http://www.withouthotair.com/Contents.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 56. At 4:39pm on 17 Dec 2009, selfevidenttruths wrote:

    @Kamboshigh 51: Well now, I did'n't exactly mean that either. U1462 ... has criticised me from the other side of the argument. Well in a few years we'll soon know who is right.

    Complain about this comment

  • 57. At 4:40pm on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "lets just agree to disagree shall we?"

    So you don't know why it would and cannot show where my proposition is wrong.

    Ah well.

    Dempster, total revenues as a fraction of GDP has hardly changed in the UK since the war.

    Complain about this comment

  • 58. At 4:47pm on 17 Dec 2009, Kamboshigh wrote:

    #46 the number with the mouth.

    So the 52 infamous scientist who are all mentioned in the emails who wrote chapter 9 of the IPCC AR4 report. Of 552 reviewers comments to this chapter they dismissed 545.

    Lets put this right of the reviewers 5 agreed with 52 scientists, 2 felt it was some what correct and 545 DISAGREED. THIS IS NOT SHOWN IN THE IPCC REPORT

    Tell you what go a peddle your lies somewhere else, settled science give me a break.

    Complain about this comment

  • 59. At 4:55pm on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "55. At 4:32pm on 17 Dec 2009, selfevidenttruths wrote:

    U14 ...: I think you misunderstand me, but there is probably little point in correcting you."

    I put my calculations there.

    Feel free to correct them where wrong.

    Even find different methods of calculating the mean power per square metre (I just took what that site said). If you can find a better method that gives seriously different results (Wales is 20779 km2, or 160x bigger than that figure I gave)

    This, after all, is skepticism and how science is done. I show you what I did and you go and check it yourself.

    Please remember that most of the land is still available for use as, for example, grazing for cows/sheep/etc or for planting foodcrops.

    Complain about this comment

  • 60. At 4:56pm on 17 Dec 2009, Dempster wrote:

    57. At 4:40pm on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:
    total revenues as a fraction of GDP has hardly changed in the UK since the war.


    Which war?

    Complain about this comment

  • 61. At 5:01pm on 17 Dec 2009, Kamboshigh wrote:

    Selfevidenttruths, exactly right lets give it a few years and see what happens. I think you'll find the number with the mouth hasn't a clue,and over 2 days it has said nothing but point out hate and personnal attacks.

    There is also another NASA report which I posted but it was deleted by mods?????????. This is has something to do with CO2 concentrations. Again very questionable especially if we must have peer-reviewed science and trends measured in decades?

    Respect Sir, time zones catching up with me, but for the record it is bloody cold over here and we have had 5cm of snow today on the mountains, very rare.

    Complain about this comment

  • 62. At 5:02pm on 17 Dec 2009, mattmurdock wrote:

    @U14260427

    Posted this on an earlier thread but thought it was worth a repost here given your points on how the world should be cooling, and that the data did not support the sceptical view...

    --to the mods - repost, but I think it is appropriate --
    So the following analysis of all the major temperature records, which show with confidence that the warming trend is lower than the models, you would class as a ditto?

    http://masterresource.org/?p=5240

    Essentially it says that depending on where you choose to start and stop, you can show warming, no change or cooling using all of the major temperature records (GISS, NCDC, CRU, UAH, RSS). All of the major temperature records show that we are in a cooling period at the moment, with a major statistically significant cooling period in the last 5 years.

    In the interest of disclosure a la xtragrumpymike2, I am white, 35, an IT professional with no formal science training since A level physics but a lot of data analysis and problem solving experience, a hobby student of psychology and a natural cynic when it comes to 'man's' self important belief that they are responsible for everything good or bad in the world.

    Now you can also point out that the blog that analysis is on trends towards the sceptical, but I feel as you have put forward RealClimate as a source of information, and that strongly trends towards the AGW position, that would not be a fair dismissal of the analysis.

    In addition, Gavin had commented directly on the analysis, calling it vaguely ok but claiming an error in the statistical process:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/a-warming-pause/comment-page-7/#comment-138126

    However, here is a debunking of that debunk, showing that if the statistical process presented in one of Gavin's own papers is used, the end result of the analysis is essentially the same:

    http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/adding-apples-and-oranges-to-cherry-picking/

    Note, none of these analyses invalidate the idea that the Earth has been warming, they just show that despite CO2 emissions rising the amount of warming has not increased as per the models' predictions, and that the temperature records used by the models are now showing a cooling trend.

    Interested to hear your, and others, responses to this.

    Complain about this comment

  • 63. At 5:07pm on 17 Dec 2009, Dempster wrote:

    57. At 4:40pm on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:
    'total revenues as a fraction of GDP has hardly changed in the UK since the war'

    Tax as a percentage of GDP in the UK has risen from 12% in 1909 to around 40% now. Difficult to see that as 'hardly changed'

    Complain about this comment

  • 64. At 5:12pm on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    Sparklet has something to say about ranting posts, Kamboshigh.

    Complain about this comment

  • 65. At 5:13pm on 17 Dec 2009, Rob wrote:

    Bring all the negotiators home.

    That way they can spend their valuable time taking a good look at the Millenium Bug, because I suspect that is even more pressing then AGW.

    Then again it is Pantomime season, just didn't realise there was a World convention in Copenhagen, what a bunch of jokers!

    Complain about this comment

  • 66. At 5:15pm on 17 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    @57

    totally: you nailed it man. how could i have thought i'd sneak it past such a razor witted, well informed socialist like your good self. grow up man.

    Complain about this comment

  • 67. At 5:25pm on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "Which war? "

    WWII.

    Complain about this comment

  • 68. At 5:29pm on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    Kamboshigh, how do you know it's lies? Just because you don't like the truth?

    Peddle your half-baked conspiracies to where they will believed.

    Complain about this comment

  • 69. At 5:31pm on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    And when facts are not on your side, pound on the table, is it tears?

    We aren't in the playground any more, tears.

    Complain about this comment

  • 70. At 5:38pm on 17 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    U14260427:

    i occurs to me that Al Gore can use the name because the odds of the Goreacle deigning to get his news from a source so close to the plebs are remote whereas you aren't allowed to use the monicker 'lord mockton' because he is somewhat more likely to be miffed at the beeb if some ++goodproAGW ecozealot troll is abusing his name. Just a thought. your ideas on the beeb mods being antiAGW? *snigger*

    respectfully

    TOOF

    Complain about this comment

  • 71. At 5:40pm on 17 Dec 2009, will wrote:

    When are we going to have a complete review of the Institute for Economic Analysis in Moscow assertion that the Hadley data only represents 25% of the Russian Weather Stations with the emphasis on urban stations where the data is effected by conurbations.
    This automatically gives the manipulated data higher increases in temperature and obviously makes the global model wrong.Why were the 40% figures ignored in the data and subsequent calculations and by whose authority.
    Why was this allowed to jeopardise all the other data. We need answers quickly otherwise we cannot trust any climate data.

    Complain about this comment

  • 72. At 5:53pm on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    tears I think you are more right than you know.

    Al Gore is not as uptight as Chris Monckton and Chris is very much a happy litigant.

    The difference in outlook from the "two sides" is not really all that healthy for the respect the denialists wish to be treated with.

    Complain about this comment

  • 73. At 5:57pm on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    Oh, notice too, regarding the anti bias of the BBC, that although the nickname of "Al Gore" IS breaking the House Rules, and I informed them of it, they still rejected.

    Now when you apply the law based on whim rather than process, what is that?

    Partisanship.

    Do you draw the law down on your friends or your enemies?

    Definitely not your enemies.

    And note that the BBC moderators are working without any apparent form of control by richard and so are mostly free to weild the moderator sword as their ***personal*** preferences desire.

    Hence by not nuking Al Gore's impersonation, the bias of the BBC moderators is shown.

    Why else not apply the rule fairly?

    Complain about this comment

  • 74. At 5:58pm on 17 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    guys, there are certain posters who will try to engage you in trival arguments ad infinitum, as a means of distracting you

    don't rise

    Complain about this comment

  • 75. At 6:00pm on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    will, the IEA is a thinktank. A QUANGO.

    And as surfacestations.org site posited, using badly sited observing stations can produce errant output. GIGO.

    So has the IEA manipulated the data to remove known effects of site?

    We don't know.

    Can the sites be so manipulated properly?

    We don't know.

    Where is this raw data?

    We don't know.

    What methods did they use?

    We don't know.

    So maybe it will have to wait until we do know.

    Complain about this comment

  • 76. At 6:08pm on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    MangoChutneyUKOK, You're looking in the mirror again!!!

    Complain about this comment

  • 77. At 6:14pm on 17 Dec 2009, Flatearther wrote:

    Now I've seen it all at the beeb. Two Jags no-brain John Prescott being interviewed at Copenhagen. Heaven save us from numpty windbags.

    Complain about this comment

  • 78. At 6:16pm on 17 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    such wit and repartee

    Complain about this comment

  • 79. At 6:27pm on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    Well I can see how answering the questions and providing the evidence and calculations to statements can be seen as confusing time wasting by one who avoids all three.

    Complain about this comment

  • 80. At 6:28pm on 17 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

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

  • 81. At 6:36pm on 17 Dec 2009, davblo wrote:

    With apologies and thanks to selfevidenttruths I'm posting this transcript of a short thread on this blog; probably missed by many due to the high rate of posting and intermixed threads.

    It shows...

    (a) The anti-AGW instant reaction against a new scientific report which was, on the face of it, pro-AGW

    (b) Casual acceptance of the content of the report when it is perceived to be other than pro-AGW

    (c) The follow up attempt to bluff a way out rather than admit that the report had not been read in the first place, and

    (d) An attempt to sound knowledgeable with a sweeping statement about how the problem could be solved.

    Highlighted text indicates the parts referred to above.
    --------------------------------------------------------
    **** 7. At 1:30pm on 17 Dec 2009, selfevidenttruths wrote:
    ____ New research from NASA:

    ____ http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/himalayan-soot.html

    --------------------------------------------------------
    **** 27. At 3:20pm on 17 Dec 2009, Kamboshigh wrote:

    ____ #7
    ____ NASA's new research, you mean they thought of a theory put
    ____ it in computer model and ran some wind patterns from the
    ____ past 7 years to say glaciers are melting
    . Sur-real climate
    ____ would love to destroy such poor science debunked across
    ____ the bloggs with threats to editors etc.

    --------------------------------------------------------
    **** 41. At 4:01pm on 17 Dec 2009, selfevidenttruths wrote:

    ____ @kamboshigh 27: Actually it is research which backs up
    ____ sceptic arguments that CO2 is not the sole factor:

    ____ "Based on the differences it’s not difficult to conclude
    ____ that greenhouse gases are not the sole agents of change
    ____ in this region. There’s a localized phenomenon at play." Lau

    -------------------------------------------------------
    **** 51. At 4:18pm on 17 Dec 2009, Kamboshigh wrote:

    ____ Selfevidenttruths totally agree it has nothing to do with CO2.
    ____ I posted earlier to remind Richard to do his cut and paste
    ____ job on it, with that intention
    . I wonder if GISS are pulling
    ____ the plug on Hansen and Schmidt.

    ____ That is an easy thing to fix if it is actually true, and does
    ____ not need 100billion euros a year.

    --------------------------------------------------------

    This is not scepticism at work, it is blatant active anti-AGW-ism.

    /davblo

    Complain about this comment

  • 82. At 6:43pm on 17 Dec 2009, davblo wrote:

    MangoChutneyUKOK #80: "U14... / yw"

    Oh dear

    Complain about this comment

  • 83. At 6:53pm on 17 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

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

  • 84. At 6:55pm on 17 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @davblo2

    come on mate, we both know who U14.... really is, he has the same MO as Yeah_Whatever, including requesting posts are removed because he doesn't like them

    Complain about this comment

  • 85. At 6:59pm on 17 Dec 2009, Maria Ashot wrote:

    Having listened to many of the leaders speaking at the Copenhagen Conference, I have yet to hear anyone deviate from the central message, which is that there is an AGW problem, a climate crisis, and an urgent need to coordinate concerted efforts to reduce pollutants, mitigate adverse effects & find a way of undoing harm done over prior generations.

    To me, that sounds exactly like Consensus.

    Only one nation, in fact, has dug in its heels about the need to take on serious reforms in how it operates.

    That nation, for all to see, is the United States of America.

    The American position remains shameful & dishonest.

    Demanding "transparency" from China & others when you are in fact the least transparent of all, the most unclear about future policy, the most tight-lipped & cagey about what your true intentions are, would actually be funny if it were not so revolting.

    It is hypocrisy; it is dishonest; it is unforthcoming.

    At the same time, the US requests all kinds of support and consent from other nations for the issues that are important to its power elites: Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, financial stability, monetarism, disarmament, trade issues...

    The moment has come for other nations to push back and cash in some of the capital they have acquired by going along with American requests & nutty ideas for a number of years now.

    The moment has come to pressure the USA and to tell them, once and for all, to join the rest of the world in adopting a mature, forthcoming and 100% accountable policy vis-à-vis the climate.

    The US has one ace up its sleeve: Barack Obama. They can allow this ace to play his hand the way he knows it must be played, or they can choose to silence him -- as they seem intent on doing -- and continue a policy of obfuscation, disruption & deception in a not-so-subtle attempt to preserve the "right to continue to mismanage resources" and carry on as up until now.

    If the American elite persists in following the latter course, and sticks to the nonsense being currently articulated by Mrs Clinton in Copenhagen -- namely that we will do nothing until everyone else does all the hard work and Convinces America that they are on a track to reduce emissions -- then Americans will face even harsher economic realities in the months to come, for the simple reason that they will have brought stagnation upon themselves, and enraged 192 other sovereign nations with their narcissistic adolescent posturing.

    Complain about this comment

  • 86. At 7:12pm on 17 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

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

  • 87. At 7:13pm on 17 Dec 2009, Crowcatcher wrote:

    Maria Ashot
    I posted this in Richard's last blog but you appear not to have read it :-
    When I first started reading your contributions to this "debate" I tended to agree with most of what you had to say, especially that we need to take radical measures to prserve our biosphere for whatever the reason.
    My belief is that we must reduce our unbridled consumption, but we must do it for the right reasons, not some pseudo-scientific fudge.
    BUT your contibutions have become more bizarre and esoteric, your latest quoting of Al Gore being particularly so on the grounds that, at best, he can be described as a monumental hyocrite because he does nothing in his personal life to indicate that he believes what he says.
    Richard's last post on the balance of the sexes in the "sceptic" community would have been better done on the subject of "Why are 100% of AGW protagonists such hypocrites"
    I don't know of one single one who makes any attempt to reduce his "carbon footprint" to negligable (i.e. zero) proportions. (Oh yes! The brainless English Prince has bought all his staff bicycles)
    I would be interested to know what yours is (no offsetting fudges) - mines 1.8 tonnes p.a.
    To paraphrase Pro. Philip Stott "I'll believe in AGW when all of our (British) politicians vote turn of Parliament's floodlights"

    Complain about this comment

  • 88. At 7:20pm on 17 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    lol maria:

    one of my major bones with the AGW thing is the unity of the choir. everyone is on message. anyone not on message is a flatearthing, antiscience, big-oil-employed shill. haven't you noticed that? how is this difficult to grasp? propaganda only works when all the 'official' commentary is unified and 'on message'.

    whenever everyone agrees on something they are usually wrong.
    bertrand russell.

    resistence to oppression begins by questioning the constant use of buzzwords.
    victor klemperer

    Complain about this comment

  • 89. At 7:21pm on 17 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    mr mango:

    i've had some mod issues when i've tried to tell people to view the emails/code for themselves. meh. its the beeb.

    i wonder if this will go through?

    Complain about this comment

  • 90. At 7:22pm on 17 Dec 2009, Jack Frost wrote:

    85. At 6:59pm on 17 Dec 2009, Maria Ashot wrote:

    "The US has one ace up its sleeve: Barack Obama."

    Fortunately the US is a democracy, and Mr Obama can't do/sign anything without the say so of his country first. He could even be charged with treason for signing away US power to an unelected body outside the US.

    Complain about this comment

  • 91. At 7:34pm on 17 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @TOOF #89

    no, i know who it is

    davblo2 thinks i've become paranoid, but even he will recognise the MO

    Complain about this comment

  • 92. At 7:42pm on 17 Dec 2009, ghostofsichuan wrote:

    There is a difference between having countries agree and having them comply. The agreement that is hollow but for political reasons will be presented as grand. They will all agree to sew a button on the clouds.

    Complain about this comment

  • 93. At 7:45pm on 17 Dec 2009, davblo wrote:

    Maria Ashot #85: "Having listened to many of the leaders speaking at the Copenhagen Conference..."

    Thanks for the insightful assessment. (Sorry for the amount of "flack" around here).

    Out of interest, how do you "listen to" the speakers? (I haven't had much time to look but I've not seen any recorded versions available).

    All the best, davblo

    Complain about this comment

  • 94. At 7:46pm on 17 Dec 2009, Sparklet wrote:

    Re #85. At 6:59pm on 17 Dec 2009, Maria Ashot

    I think many of us are aware of Barack Obama's stance on the matter

    OBAMA INVOLVEMENT

    Complain about this comment

  • 95. At 7:49pm on 17 Dec 2009, selfevidenttruths wrote:

    U142.... : I don't think your calculation is wrong per se. The question is over the power generated. From my reading it would seem to be of a significantly lower order. Firstly 140w/m2 is the figure I have for the available power, but that is before taking into account that it is only about 50 to 60% efficient. Then one has to consider that the windmills have to be spaced apart, and the loading factor (wind does not blow all the time). Once all these are taken into account one ends up with a figure of 2w/m2 of land area : ( Using your figure of 45GW we end up with 22.5 billion m2/ 22,500 km2 or a square 150km by 150km!
    Btw, the figure of 2w/m2 of land area appears to be roughly what working wind farms have acheived.
    Hope my calculation ok. Please read the following, I found it very interesting if a little dismaying.

    Ref:
    http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c4/page_32.shtml
    http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/cB/page_263.shtml
    http://www.withouthotair.com/Contents.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 96. At 7:50pm on 17 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #81 davblo wrote:

    "The anti-AGW instant reaction"...

    Are you saying everyone on the anti-AGW side reacted the same way? -- I don't doubt I am as guilty as the next fellow of doing it, but I hereby resolve never to lump everyone together on one side or the other side.

    Some sceptics' reactions were different from the one you report above.

    Scientific opinions (I mean opinions about science as well as opinions of scientists) should be judged on their own merits rather than on what sort of person has the opinion. As far as science is concerned, "what side the scientist is on" is irrelevant.

    However, since we seem to be talking politics here, there has been much speculation on the question of what "really" motivates people (lumping them all together) from one side or the other side.

    A lot of people on the blog seem to think AGW is all about taxation, that it is motivated by governments' secret plans to wring more money out of the "ordinary Joe". I think they're wrong. I think it's all sincere (although I may as well add I think sincerity is even worse, not least for poetry).

    I am a left-wing liberal. I detest and reject the ideology of the unregulated market. Yet I am a sceptic.

    The Conservative party is quite fond of the unregulated market. Yet it is said to be "even greener than Labour", and there are (almost) no sceptical voices in the Conservative party.

    The Daily Telegraph is quite fond of the unregulated market. Yet it is almost as un-sceptical as the Guardian, and distinctly less sceptical than the Independent.

    Complain about this comment

  • 97. At 7:51pm on 17 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    "I have yet to hear anyone deviate from the central message"

    Then they are idiots.

    Complain about this comment

  • 98. At 8:14pm on 17 Dec 2009, Maria Ashot wrote:

    No. 90, It may be news to you, but President Obama has a constituency, a mandate, an Administration and an army.

    If, as Commander-in-Chief, he instructed the Chiefs to implement sound resource management in the armed forces of the USA, that alone would have a significant impact on American awareness about the importance of ending a culture of egregious waste & indifference to the biosphere we depend on.

    The EPA can be used more effectively than it was under Clinton & Bushes.

    The election of 2010 may clear out more of the backward-thinking elements from Congress.

    Don't imagine by any means that there is no grass roots moment in the USA that would not rally behind Barack Obama -- again -- if he was given free rein to know what he knows needs to be done for the planet to remain hospitable to the generation of his daughters, and their future descendants.

    But for all that to happen, more of the delegates in Copenhagen today need to remind the US delegation that not doing more is going to cost Americans a great deal more than doing more, in palpable pain, in detectable consequences.

    Complain about this comment

  • 99. At 8:28pm on 17 Dec 2009, Dempster wrote:

    85. At 6:59pm on 17 Dec 2009, Maria Ashot wrote:
    'Only one nation, in fact, has dug in its heels about the need to take on serious reforms in how it operates.
    That nation, for all to see, is the United States of America. The American position remains shameful & dishonest'

    The US has had its elections everyone presumably had a vote, who they voted for are represented in Copenhagen.

    I conclude that the US representatives are looking after the best interests of those they represent.

    Deny them that and you deny democracy.

    Complain about this comment

  • 100. At 8:37pm on 17 Dec 2009, infiniti wrote:

    re 24: "The sceptic/denier case here seems to have a similar strategy to the George Bush campaign memo written by Frank Lunz in 2002"

    That was the Luntz memo that suggested using the phrase "climate change" instead of "global warming" since the phrase "climate change" sounds less alarming.

    Only notable because since then I have been told by psuedoskeptics on a number of occasions that the term "climate change" is something new that "alarmists" are using instead of "global warming" because it's more vague (despite the acroynm IPCC being 20 years old)

    It's almost another case of heads you lose, tails you lose again.

    Complain about this comment

  • 101. At 8:44pm on 17 Dec 2009, infiniti wrote:

    Re 22 UBoat14260427:

    I disagree, I don't think it's morally right. A person should be just as entitled to decide what happens to their money after death as when they are alive.

    Complain about this comment

  • 102. At 8:48pm on 17 Dec 2009, davblo wrote:

    MangoChutneyUKOK #91: "davblo2 thinks i've become paranoid, ..."

    Not at all.

    When I said in #82, "Oh dear", I was agreeing and sympathising with you.

    Cheers; davblo

    Complain about this comment

  • 103. At 8:49pm on 17 Dec 2009, Space_1999 wrote:

    Why no coverage of this on the BBC?

    http://www.thegwpf.org/international-news/305-climategate-did-cru-manipulate-russian-climate-data.html

    What is happening to this once-great corporation?

    It's now just the marketing wing of the British government; it might as well be Chinese!

    Such a shame.

    Complain about this comment

  • 104. At 8:49pm on 17 Dec 2009, Sparklet wrote:

    Re #96. At 7:50pm on 17 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard

    Bowman,
    We're all individuals so it is not unusual for us to agree on some things and not others but haven't you contradicted your own statement ie "I hereby resolve never to lump everyone together on one side or the other side" ie
    "there are (almost) no sceptical voices in the Conservative party" aren't you talking about the leadership here rather than the actual party eg read the comments on David Cameron's blog about the importance of the Copenhagen Conference -
    http://blog.conservatives.com/index.php/2009/11/27/the-copenhagen-summit-is-of-historic-importance
    (I think they are more representative of grass roots opinion).

    The same may be true of the Labour and Liberal parties but perhaps to a lesser extent.

    And as for the Telegraph - the editorial may be rather un-sceptic but James Delingpole who writes there on a daily basis is a decided sceptic

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/author/jamesdelingpole/

    and has covered this story in great detail right from the start.

    I must admit my inclination is that politicians are guided more by 'vested interests' and less by sincerity but perhaps I'm more of a 'sceptic'!!!

    Complain about this comment

  • 105. At 8:49pm on 17 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    i get the feeling that there are a few peeps round here (including mr black apparently) who would vote (one single time before voting was judged a frivolous use of carbon) for ecofascism.

    Complain about this comment

  • 106. At 8:52pm on 17 Dec 2009, Define_real wrote:

    Maria,

    Barak Obama, has little say in how things are going to pan out when Maurice Strong (Currently living in China), pulling the strings of Al Gore (patron of HARA who will gain many millions of $ from carbon trading) gets things moving after any 'agreement' in Copenhagen. The whole thing has little or nothing to do with saving the planet, it's about milking us and gaining even more power, which the dutiful and compliant populatuions will gladly concede.

    Complain about this comment

  • 107. At 8:54pm on 17 Dec 2009, Maria Ashot wrote:

    Dempster, No. 99: Missing from your description of American democratic process:

    (1) A guarantee that all votes will be counted, and all counting will be recorded accurately & respected.

    (2) Any kind of mechanism to ensure everyone votes who has a right to vote.

    (3) Any reliable mechanism to prevent those who do not have a right to vote from actually voting anyway, or from voting more than once.

    (4) Any kind of mechanism to ensure that every voter votes on the basis of reflection, in an informed & rigorous way -- in other words, not casually, and not lackadaisically.

    There are flaws in the American democracy as it is currently practiced -- as you most certainly know without my having to remind you.

    But, as is the case of other problems in other places on the planet, the matter of US elections takes a distant back seat to the more pressing, immediate matter of ending -- as quickly as possible -- the contamination of our biosphere with substances known to threaten human survival & our collective health.

    Complain about this comment

  • 108. At 9:10pm on 17 Dec 2009, Maria Ashot wrote:

    No. 93, davblo: By using a variety of websites and understanding a number of languages, it is possible to find enough actual live feeds (or even delayed broadcasts) from Copenhagen to get a fair sense of what is being said.

    The Copenhagen website gave a list of speakers and approximate times they were scheduled to be heard.

    The main UN website also has impressive broadcast capabilities. I have found it enormously useful whenever these kinds of discussions are going on. The UN does attach great significance to these proceedings, as they should.

    While I rely on the BBC, I also sought out the reports on Russian news sites (which carried live feeds with the English translation playing); the Xinhua news agency, which also has excellent reports in English, elaborating on the Chinese perspective; and of course the news agencies of the various European countries.

    National government websites carry the texts of the speeches of their leaders.

    Probably after this wraps they will post complete transcripts.

    As for the all the people posting here who are hopping mad about things changing: well, it's all worth it, at the end of the day, if we keep the promise we make our children, our siblings, our friends: to try to make this planet a better place for everyone, for a little longer.

    One of the things I really liked that the Chinese Prime Minister, Mr Wen, kept mentioning was the importance of Harmony.

    A novel concept for some, yet indispensible if we are to have better times ahead.

    Complain about this comment

  • 109. At 9:19pm on 17 Dec 2009, Maria Ashot wrote:

    Further to the previous, davblo (No. 93):

    Here is an example of what you can find on the UN website from the UN News Centre:

    THE FOLLOWING IS A DIRECT CITATION FROM UN.ORG:

    16 December 2009 – The United Nations today launched a pilot project to provide fuel-efficient stoves to some 150,000 women in Sudan and Uganda to cut the risks of murder, rape and other violence they face in gathering firewood, while at the same time protecting the environment.

    The Safe Access to Firewood and Alternative Energy in Humanitarian Settings (SAFE) stoves initiative organized by the World Food Programme (WFP) and other UN agencies, will be rolled out next year to reach eventually up to 6 million refugees, internally displaced persons (IDPs), and returnees in 36 nations, where they are forced to walk further and further into the bush into unsafe areas to collect firewood.

    “Women and girls should not have to risk their lives and dignity, and precious trees should not be lost, in the simple act of trying to cook food for their families,” WFP Executive Director Josette Sheeran said. “The SAFE stoves launch will help protect them and the environment with practical and urgently needed solutions.”

    Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon also welcomed the project at an event in Copenhagen held on the sidelines of the UN climate change talks.

    He described the initiative as showing “a virtuous circle in action, thanks to technology – environmental protection… improved safety for women… access to clean energy for the poor… enhanced climate security.”

    The project “is a simple, inexpensive and win-win solution… [that will] provide immediate, tangible benefits to their users,” he added.

    WFP researchers have found that some women spend a full day’s wages on firewood alone. Others sell off food rations to purchase fuel. The SAFE project will scale up distribution of fuel-efficient and “improved mud” stoves to assist almost 100,000 women in North Darfur. These stoves consume less firewood and lower health risks associated with smoke.

    [STORY CONTINUES ON THE WEBSITE]

    Complain about this comment

  • 110. At 9:20pm on 17 Dec 2009, Flatearther wrote:

    Richard:

    I don't think that Joanne Nova is very impressed with you. In fact she has an answer to your sexist post of yesterday at http://joannenova.com.au/

    Complain about this comment

  • 111. At 9:21pm on 17 Dec 2009, selfevidenttruths wrote:

    @Maria 107: With regard to 2, do you propose mandatory voting? With regard to 4 how exactly do you propose to do that? Will you be the judge. Sometimes you have some disturbing ideas.

    Complain about this comment

  • 112. At 9:22pm on 17 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    maria:

    did you also enjoy the speeches by these lovable chaps?


    refering to the speech by the cuddly mr chavez:
    When he said the process in Copenhagen was “not democratic, it is not inclusive, but isn’t that the reality of our world, the world is really and imperial dictatorship…down with imperial dictatorships” he got a rousing round of applause.

    When he said there was a “silent and terrible ghost in the room” and that ghost was called capitalism, the applause was deafening.

    'But then he wound up to his grand conclusion – 20 minutes after his 5 minute speaking time was supposed to have ended and after quoting everyone from Karl Marx to Jesus Christ - “our revolution seeks to help all people…socialism, the other ghost that is probably wandering around this room, that’s the way to save the planet, capitalism is the road to hell....let’s fight against capitalism and make it obey us.” He won a standing ovation.'

    also the delightful mr mugabe the 'veteran' president of zimbabwe (and mass murder but don't worry about that) had this to say:

    'When these capitalist gods of carbon burp and belch their dangerous emissions, it’s we, the lesser mortals of the developing sphere who gasp and sink and eventually die.”'


    do you want to know more?
    do your part citizens!
    the only good co2 is dead co2!

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/putting_our_economy_in_the_hands_of_chavez_fans

    Complain about this comment

  • 113. At 9:29pm on 17 Dec 2009, selfevidenttruths wrote:

    @Maria 108: Would that be the same harmony that silences dissent? You should bear in mind that China is little more than a dictatorship and they can take whatever measures they wish without reference to the will of the people. Your unbeloved leader however, has to sell whatever agreement he signs to the American people, or would you prefer that you lived in a dictatorship? If only everyone thought like you eh? What is your carbon footprint by the way?

    Complain about this comment

  • 114. At 9:33pm on 17 Dec 2009, PAUL6 wrote:

    Have you see the state of the weather out there? I'm freezing.
    Global warming my arse.

    Complain about this comment

  • 115. At 9:33pm on 17 Dec 2009, Dempster wrote:

    107. At 8:54pm on 17 Dec 2009, Maria Ashot wrote:
    'There are flaws in the American democracy as it is currently practiced -- as you most certainly know without my having to remind you'

    Well I hadn't a clue to be brutally honest.
    Does that mean that Mr Obama is not really the president?
    Has he fiddled the votes?

    The plain truth is that I’m just an average working Joe, and the thought which occupies my mind this Christmas is how I’m going to make enough money to keep a roof over the family’s head and food on the table next year.

    Climate change, CO2 emissions tax and all the buffoonery which goes along with it, are a long way from what my priorities are at the moment.

    Here I sit behind an old PC wondering how to make it all fit.

    Complain about this comment

  • 116. At 9:37pm on 17 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    mods if 112 doesnt made it through i will be asking you for an email explaining why.

    Complain about this comment

  • 117. At 9:38pm on 17 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    lol that was prompt. thanks mods, love you xxxx

    Complain about this comment

  • 118. At 9:39pm on 17 Dec 2009, Neil Hyde wrote:

    Thought I would pop in here briefly to see what our resident "consensus" mouthpieces, both BBC tax payer funded , and the mindless independents are spouting tonight.

    Imagine my delight to find that our dear old friend Mark , aka ub40, aka yeahwhatever has crept out of the woodwork!!

    A sure sign that the alarmists are getting worried is when this uber troll is thrown in to the fray .

    Welcome back Mark , benn shot down on all your favourite haunts again ?

    Complain about this comment

  • 119. At 9:42pm on 17 Dec 2009, Maria Ashot wrote:

    Dempster, No. 115: Well, welcome to my life for the past 23 years.

    Don't worry: you get used to it with time, and strangely enough you do manage.

    It helped a lot when we gave up the car.

    Complain about this comment

  • 120. At 9:46pm on 17 Dec 2009, selfevidenttruths wrote:

    @Tears: Re Chavez & Mugabe, I am sure will we not always agree but on this I say hear, hear! Sure capitalism has its faults, but I thought this was about climate change not world revolution. Does this mean that Chavez will now be giving his OIL away free?

    Complain about this comment

  • 121. At 9:50pm on 17 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    you know with guys like chavez and mugabe being proAGW i'm gonna convert. i love those dudes! i don't need to be circumcised or pray facing the troposphere or anything do i?

    Complain about this comment

  • 122. At 9:54pm on 17 Dec 2009, davblo wrote:

    Maria Ashot #108: "By using a variety of websites and understanding a number of languages,..."

    I'm impressed.

    So I persevered; the COP15 web site didn't seem to offer much. But then I found it.

    If you go to COP15 Main Page and scroll down to the very end and look on the far right, then the second line up in very pale text is a link to COP15 Webcast, the Webcast main Page.

    This shows any live feeds, and there are short-cuts to different dates to select for earlier ones.

    Also, scrolling down, you find a tabular listing of talks, and clicking on them opens a viewing frame and plays the recording. Some I see have original and translated audio options.

    I found it didn't like my browser so I had to switch to Windows Internet Explorer; then it worked fine.

    Now I just need some pointers as to which presentations are most worthwhile taking the time to watch.

    (Choosing some at random at the moment)

    All the best; davblo

    Complain about this comment

  • 123. At 9:54pm on 17 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    @120

    doubt it dude! fight the good fight, either way!

    Complain about this comment

  • 124. At 9:58pm on 17 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    tbh i've been saying it for a while (no offence moderate lefties):

    extreme lefties have been trying hijack AGW for yonks!

    work is done for the day, in a bit, gotta mooch home through a minor blizzard!

    Complain about this comment

  • 125. At 10:03pm on 17 Dec 2009, Dempster wrote:

    119. At 9:42pm on 17 Dec 2009, Maria Ashot wrote:
    'Dempster, No. 115: Well, welcome to my life for the past 23 years.
    Don't worry: you get used to it with time, and strangely enough you do manage. It helped a lot when we gave up the car.'

    Well fair enough; if I manage to walk the thick end of forty miles to the next job I have to do, then I'll salute you.
    I truly will.

    J.D.

    Complain about this comment

  • 126. At 10:10pm on 17 Dec 2009, Maria Ashot wrote:

    Come on, Mr Forefathers: With the exception of Kim in NK & the Tehran tyrants, we don't have anyone on the planet today at the head of a nation that could be remotely compared to a Lenin, Hitler or Stalin.

    Chavez says many foolish things. So does Castro. So does Gaddaffi. But even they on occasion say things that are actually not untrue.

    We are speaking of the most fundamental right of all: to clean air, to an acceptable oxygen level, to water that does not carry disease, to food in sufficient quantities to avoid famines & maintain basic health norms.

    There isn't a country on earth that does not have internal crises to address: some more than others.

    What there needs to be is 100% consensus -- yes, even from the USA -- on placing Environmental Health & a Sustainable, Intelligent Approach to managing the planet's resources in a way that allows us all to carry on with whatever actions we see needed for the improvement of our own local, municipal, regional & national governments, and the societies we care most about.

    You think there are no human rights violations in America? Have you looked at the history of the Interior Department's mishandling of funds payable to the First Nations?

    Don't you think at least one or two the people writing here who would literally like to see me drop dead just for having the voice to take them on believe very much in silencing dissent, if given license to do so?

    If I am wrong in that assessment, can you explain to me the explosive level of vitriol attached to this discussion?

    As I have written before, elsewhere on this website: America needs to Grow Up. It needs to Wise Up. It needs to live up to its own PR version of itself. At least some of the time!

    I believe, in a very profound way, in all the principles articulated in the American Founding Documents. But I expect those documents to actually translate into Reality, and not just be some symbol that our kids have to pledge allegiance to.

    "Life, Liberty & the Pursuit of Happiness" cannot be redefined by some corrupt corporate interests to mean "Theft, Graft, Deception & the Pursuit of Personal Enrichment by Rendering Others Destitute."

    Or didn't you notice what happened with the credit default swaps? (And by the way they remain unregulated at this writing.)

    The Founders did not need to define "the pursuit of happiness." They all understood what it meant.

    It included an inalienable right to air & water that could sustain life.

    You cannot have Liberty after your Health has been taken away.

    The words "with Liberty & Justice for All" explicitly define a Social Contract between the government of the USA and its citizens. The words "liberty and justice" do not refer to abstractions, either. Nor are they limited by the addition of the words, "for all... Americans only."

    "Justice" means that if I pay a certain amount for an automobile, and for the fuel that drives it, the automaker & the petroleum engineer, for the money they receive, will deliver products that, as much as possible, keep me, their Customer Happy, Safe & Well.

    If they knowingly furnish a substandard product, if they through carelessness or laziness create conditions that are hazardous for my health or my children's, where is the Justice -- where is the Fair Value that my payments are supposed to buy, according to the theory of the free marketplace?

    When I obtain information exposing their failings, I can then, in the interests of Liberty & Justice, elect to stop supporting these industries -- again according to the theory of the free marketplace.

    And that's America. That's what the Pledge of Allegiance is supposed to enshrine, in principle.

    Of late, GM & other American corporate giants have been pitching a fit because their customers are complaining -- fairly -- about the quality of their products. The American way would be simply to engage in innovation & deliver a better product, minus the big fuss.

    And by the way, Kanzlerin Merkel delivered an absolutely magnificent speech, at Copenhagen.

    Which is why, at the moment, I am inclined to think well of the Leaders, rather than ill.

    And I will wait to hear President Obama, and trust he rises to the occasion. We need to raise the performance bar higher. Used to be it was very "American" to believe in the possibility of achieving more, rather than less.

    Complain about this comment

  • 127. At 10:18pm on 17 Dec 2009, Sparklet wrote:

    Re #110. At 9:20pm on 17 Dec 2009, Flatearther wrote:
    Richard:

    I don't think that Joanne Nova is very impressed with you. In fact she has an answer to your sexist post of yesterday at http://joannenova.com.au/

    ------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fantastic response from Joanne.

    Well come on Richard - are you up for the challenge -

    "Note that Black, like other uninvestigative journalists, assumes that there is “overwhelming evidence”. I challenge Black to name and explain one paper with empirical evidence that carbon dioxide leads to major warming (meaning more than 1.5 degrees C). There’s plenty of evidence that carbon causes minor warming, and there are plenty of “simulations” that claim to show major warming. But a simulation of the climate, can only ever give us simulations of evidence. We need evidence from the real climate, not the fakes ones. But there is nothing empirical. The lack of empirical evidence does not in and of itself prove that carbon can’t have a major role, but it proves that Black is wrong and that there is not overwhelming evidence."

    http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/women-dont-want-to-face-global-bullies/

    Or will you simply resort to insults via third party quotes as you normally do.

    We'd all be interested in some 'overwhelming evidence'.

    Complain about this comment

  • 128. At 10:26pm on 17 Dec 2009, Maria Ashot wrote:

    Fresh from the New York Times today: a report on Tainted Tap Water in America.

    Worth the six or seven minutes to watch.

    Cheers!

    Complain about this comment

  • 129. At 10:30pm on 17 Dec 2009, Maria Ashot wrote:

    No. 122: Thanks, davblo! Brilliant!

    And thank you, Copenhagen!

    Complain about this comment

  • 130. At 10:31pm on 17 Dec 2009, infiniti wrote:

    Joanne says "There’s plenty of evidence that carbon causes minor warming". Try asking her for it.



    Complain about this comment

  • 131. At 10:32pm on 17 Dec 2009, selfevidenttruths wrote:

    @Maria: To be fair to you I liked your last comment, and maybe thats why Obama galvanized at least some of the American people for a while; the optimism, the chance of doing something better. So yes lets hope, but he can not do it all himself and he has a hell of a job on his hands, even with his own party.

    Complain about this comment

  • 132. At 10:33pm on 17 Dec 2009, selfevidenttruths wrote:

    Btw: New thread.

    Complain about this comment

  • 133. At 10:41pm on 17 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    ok maria:


    how would you defend mr mugabe please? the man murdered thousands in the 80s and is still a defacto dictator ie tyrant as in comprable to hitler and stalin and even pol pot. he raped zimbabwes shaky economy, has thugs intimidate voters and guard voting sites while sporting bats and firearms? denies food aid to opposition voters etc etc

    any idea?

    respectfully

    TOOF

    Complain about this comment

  • 134. At 11:15pm on 17 Dec 2009, Maria Ashot wrote:

    Dempster, No. 125: My sympathies on the commute -- do check the availability of alternatives, won't you?

    Amazingly enough (to Americans), many of our cities actually have pretty decent public transit systems. Even LA. It can be a mental hurdle for some, but often it is quite feasible, and you even come to enjoy it.

    One of the mitigating programmes the US should implement without delay is rapid investment in & upgrading of its public transit systems. That would also create jobs.

    Although most American cities do not have the advanced public transport of the EU or many other countries on earth (I have fond memories to this day of the Buenos Aires subway system from my early childhood), even so they are better than nothing, and a tolerable (plus reasonaby inexpensive) way to get around.

    Worked for us for about eight years. Forced a change in habits. Now we only make the effort to get together with the people we absolutely want to see.

    The past is over. We can get nostalgic about it, or we can look ahead and make the most of our lives as they are today -- since hardly any of us writing here have much say over how things happen!

    Complain about this comment

  • 135. At 11:17pm on 17 Dec 2009, Maria Ashot wrote:

    No. 133, Mr Forefathers: Thank you for coming up with the name that eluded me.

    Mugabe. Mass murderer. Yep. I entirely agree.

    Can't understand how he is still around, either.

    But the overwhelming majority of the rest of them, let's face it, are not in that league.

    Complain about this comment

  • 136. At 11:32pm on 17 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    with friends like these...

    Complain about this comment

  • 137. At 11:34pm on 17 Dec 2009, thinkforyourself wrote:

    Interesting article from the Sydney Morning Herald here:-

    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/two-degrees-to-disaster-20091217-kzhv.html

    Go to ‘News releases’ on right hand side here:- http://www.jma.go.jp/jma/indexe.html of Japanese Meteorological Agency and click on:-

    ‘Third Highest Global Surface Temperature in 2009’.

    The ‘sceptics’ claim scientists have got limitless funding. Why this then? –

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8417365.stm

    A bit about what’s happening ‘down-under’:-

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/phone-alerts-as-fires-burn-out-of-control/story-e6frg6nf-1225811555457


    Complain about this comment

  • 138. At 11:37pm on 17 Dec 2009, David Llewellyn wrote:

    Assuming that the global warming is being caused at least in part by a rise in CO2 emissions, it is clear that to reduce the warming we should reduce the total amount of fossil fuels burned on the planet. There is little point in some countries reducing their consumption if others increase theirs! In my view, the only way to burn less fossil fuel (oil, coal and gas) is to produce less.

    But at the present time Iraq is planning to double its oil production, People in India and Brazil are rubbing their hands with glee thinking about all the money they are going to make from the new oil fields recently discovered, and Russia is building new pipelines to export more of its gas, so right now it looks like production is going to be significantly increased. And I am sure that it will all be burned, agreement in Copenhagen or not.

    I am certain that the only way to really reduce global warming is to reduce the amount of fossil fuels produced.

    If we look at the supply and and demand equation, we see that if the supply increases and the demand drops, the price will go down. But people and businesses will only change to currently more expensive alternatives if they have an economic interest to do so.

    So we should persuade the producers to produce less, thereby increasing the price and giving everybody an economic incentive to change to alternatives. These will become increasingly economic, stocks of fossil fuels will be preserved for the future, and the producers' revenue will increase since the price will go up. And hopefully, we will put a brake on global warming.

    So if we reduce production of fossil fuels, everybody wins!

    So why does nobody talk about it?

    Complain about this comment

  • 139. At 00:16am on 18 Dec 2009, Maria Ashot wrote:

    No. 138, David Llewellyn: You are exactly right.

    Some of us have been talking about it, for a long while, in fact.

    Today, China leads the world in solar power industry. It could have been the US, or Canada, or Russia, or Mexico, or India, or Pakistan.

    It is China.

    Demand keeps growing because population is growing rapidly and demands for energy, especially to run our beloved IT networks without which business & even daily life have become unthinkable, rise accordingly.

    Investment on all fronts, by all parties, in alternative energy sources, as well as in cleaning up traditional fossil fuels by upgrading infrastructure, is a vital, urgent priority.

    In the US, we have been fighting to promote investment in solar power for decades. It has been ridiculously difficult, even though, for small scale users, solar is quite a reasonable and ultimately not at all an expensive option.

    Then there are those who are utterly wedded to concepts of Grids, keeping people Wired Together, on a Grid -- for all kinds of reasons, some quite spurious. In the US, that Grid -- the power infrastructure -- is so fragile there are entire task forces dedicated to safeguarding it from "terrorist attacks" by hackers & others. Yet how much is being committed to upgrading this precious resource? Precious little...

    We have lost years and years.

    At the other end of the dysfunctionality spectrum, Russia, with a creaky infrastructure, is reduced to selling off its resources just to make ends meet. Had it been admitted into the WTO, it would have had more options available to it for revenue. As you know, it has some formidable engineering talent, even after all the awful years of hardship...

    Who has been in the way of Russian accession to the WTO? Take a good guess!

    Until we ramp up alternative energy sources at a sufficiently intensive rate to reduce fossil fuel consumption, the second best step to take is to upgrade infrastructure so that the notorious waste that goes on at mismanaged facilities comes to a swift halt. If you follow any number of industries, oil & gas included, you discover enormous, criminal levels of waste -- especially in countries such as Russia, Mexico, Brazil, Kazakhstan, India... That is why MRV truly is a vital component: we need international teams of experts going around gathering information about what is being tolerated that must not be allowed, and then recommending decisive action to follow, with funds and manpower available for rapid deployment to engage in clean-up.

    Yes it will cost money -- and yes it will create jobs!

    Of the fossil fuels, coal is actually the worst offender. An overhaul of the coal industry is essential. It will have the greatest, most rapidly detectable beneficial impact on emissions.

    The way we use electricity needs to be re-examined, especially during daylight hours or in warmer weather. Anything we do to reduce the coal burden on the planet will yield results.

    It is a factor to consider when looking at electric cars, by the way: how good are they of the chief power source is still from a coal-burning plant?

    There was a man in California who actually stuck photovoltaic cells on the roof of his old jalopy, and it ran beautifully...

    Think, people!

    Complain about this comment

  • 140. At 05:08am on 18 Dec 2009, TeaPot562 wrote:

    In southern Greenland, Viking colonists were able to support themselves by growing crops for several centuries, roughly 1000 A.D. to 1400 A.D. After a few years of cooler summers and shorter growing seasons, they abandoned their colony about 1420 A.D.
    The MMGW advocates talk about "record warming" and "highest temperatures on record", but their starting point (for global temperature measurement) seems to be about 1980! Their theory about all temperature changes being dependent on man-produced CO2 does not account for the cooler centuries after the Vikings abandoned Greenland.
    Has southern Greenland, even in this year - 2009 - become warm enough for a colony to reestablish that can grow its own food? Until I get an intelligible explanation on this, I remain a sceptic on MMGW accounting for the major climate changes.

    As to the willingness of Japan and the European union to reduce their industrial generation of CO2, their populations are in decline in recent decades. The USA, au contraire, is still growing by nearly 2 million per year, mostly by immigration, as the Caucasion part of the population no longer has enough births to replace itself. If your population is declining, they will suffer less from reducing their industry than a nation whose population is growing.

    Complain about this comment

  • 141. At 06:57am on 18 Dec 2009, poitsplace wrote:

    @ David Llewellyn #138 "just produce less fuel"
    @ Maria Ashot #139 "agree..." plus a long ramble
    Your lack of understanding of these matters is disturbing. Yes, by all means...when you're demanding that we have to produce a couple years worth of the TOTAL world production output in replacement infrastructure...let's introduce an artificial limitation that will limit us to not even being able to keep up what we have. It's so crazy it just might...fail utterly because it was a terrible idea.

    You do know wind turbines and solar power plants don't just build themselves, right? There's not a special, magic wand attachment that you can give to tinkerbell so she can erect wind turbines or solar plants with a flick of her wrist. And by the way, even if wind turbines and solar were made like that...we'd STILL need to pay almost as much as we'd have paid for wind turbines just to make the system work when we wanted it (which is a part of the whole point of technology)

    @TOOF RE:Would you like to know more.
    I have to admit I too get the feeling sometimes that I'm going to see some Starship Trooper style ads about how the "citizens" can "do their part"...Right down to the "service guarantees citizenship" idea and the treatment of skeptics that dare to point out blatantly obvious and utterly devastating flaws in most of the "theories" about substantial amounts of AGW.

    Complain about this comment

  • 142. At 07:01am on 18 Dec 2009, poitsplace wrote:

    @U14260427 wrote: RE:100% inheritence tax.
    Yeah I think it would be a GREAT idea if we could somehow get you heard at some kind of meeting of the world's best economists. And then after however long it took them to stop laughing...they could inform you of all the ways that idea is monumentally bad. You know there's a REASON a smaller percentage of the people hold most of the money and the exact same distributions show up in nature as well.
    Should we ALSO grid off the world's habitats and enforce "equal" resources for all species? The world is unfair...get used to it. If you took ALL the wealth of the world and spread it out evenly...within a few years the only thing you'd have to show for it is a hefty dose of inflation...and a brand new batch of rich people emerging. If you force it to maintain equity...everyone is leeching off the resources of the people contributing the most to society and they contribute less...or even stop trying. A guy I know from lithuania once spoke of the the old soviet system..."They pretend to pay us and we pretend to work." I know you don't think you're talking about communism but 100% inheritence tax is (for reasons you obviously can't fathom) really leaning toward communism .


    @U14260427 #39
    "The plain science says we should be, if anything, cooling.
    Really? You base this on what? Let's look at what the ice core data says about the holocene. ( http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/ ) Hmmm, I don't find the teeny, tiny blip at the end there even remotely alarming. If anything I find the change in overall behavior BEFORE the recent blip disturbing.

    Never in the past has coal and oil burned in the gigatons since the PETM. Unlike the PETM (which was volcanic and we can't stop them) this one is because of industry (and we CAN stop industry using fossil fuels)."
    Unfortunately for your case, we don't actually know what caused the PETM. There's a hypothesis that it's CO2 but this is difficult to nail down and we ARE talking about a lava field that covered several percent of the earth's surface...If the "tiny" yellowstone caldera can cause global, mass extinctions, imagine what a much larger eruption for a much longer time frame could do.

    @U14260427 #59 RE: Size of the wind farm to power the UK
    I assume the part of the calculation that you're missing is the place you have to deal with the fact that a turbines only average about 1/3 to 1/2 it's nameplate capacity. Some sites may average higher amounts but these are extremely rare and more than offset by others. To produce ONLY the UK's electrical needs...it would take an area about 1/2 the size of the UK. Add transportation energy and this goes up significantly (although I haven't bothered to calculate it)

    Complain about this comment

  • 143. At 07:21am on 18 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @davblo2 #102

    When I said in #82, "Oh dear", I was agreeing and sympathising with you.

    In that case, apologies, i do you a disservice




    /mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 144. At 07:43am on 18 Dec 2009, Mike Ireland wrote:

    Anybody else get two meanings from this statement?

    QUOTE:'A deal is emerging at the UN climate change talks, but there are fears it will not contain a catastrophic rise in temperatures............... '

    DOES THAT MEAN IT SHOULD CONTAIN A CATASTROPHIC RISE IN TEMPERATURES?

    Complain about this comment

  • 145. At 08:15am on 18 Dec 2009, ScudLewis wrote:

    Any chance of a piece about the Russian think tank claiming Met Office manipulated climate data?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1236513/Met-Office-manipulated-climate-change-figures-say-Russian-think-tank.html
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLHQL61YzKs

    Also - the New Scientists reaction piece to the '100 reasons Climate Change is Natural' is worth a read:

    New Scientist: 50 reasons why global warming isn't natural
    http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/12/50-reasons-why-global-warming.html

    Interesting quote:

    "3) Warmer periods of the Earth's history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.

    In the past 3 million years changing levels of sunshine triggered and ended the ice ages. Carbon dioxide was a feedback that increased warming, rather than the initial cause. In the more distant past, several warming episodes were directly triggered by CO2."

    Am I correct in thinking they are saying warming periods are both triggered by the Sun and CO2, but if the Sun triggers a warming period - CO2 increases the warming?

    Complain about this comment

  • 146. At 08:17am on 18 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #104 Sparklet wrote:

    '"there are (almost) no sceptical voices in the Conservative party" aren't you talking about the leadership here rather than the actual party'

    Well, by "almost" I mean "nearly all, but not all", and by "voices" I mean public utterances. If the grassroots really differ from the leadership, they have been as quiet as mice -- really quite cowardly and ineffectivce in communicating their real opinions to the "leadership". Creeps like that deserve to lose the election, or at least do much less well than they expect!

    Complain about this comment

  • 147. At 08:27am on 18 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @ScudLewis #145

    My understanding is temperature rises trigger CO2 rises and the lag is around 800 years on average. CO2 rise has never preceded temperature rise according to the ice cores. The Global Warm-mongers tell us the additional CO2 amplifies the temperature rise, which has merit up to a point

    Complain about this comment

  • 148. At 09:51am on 18 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "BTW, When Shanta Barley was doing the Blog of Bloom and you repeatedly refered posts to the mods because you believed Phil Jones was being slandered, it was Shanta who had you banned from complaining."

    BTW ASSHAD: How would you know what the moderators did?

    Pally with them?

    And if you're not, then that is just another paranoid delusion from The Paranoid One with such an open mind he wants people shut out because he doesn't like what they say.

    Truly a hobgoblin of little mind.

    Complain about this comment

  • 149. At 09:57am on 18 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    @Indefinite:
    "I disagree, I don't think it's morally right. A person should be just as entitled to decide what happens to their money after death as when they are alive."

    That's the point. It isn't their money. They're dead. If their children cannot win with the privilege they were born with and require the inheritence to survive, you DO NOT have a meritocracy: you have an aristocracy.


    @poit:
    "Yeah I think it would be a GREAT idea if we could somehow get you heard at some kind of meeting of the world's best economists."

    You mean the economists who tanked the economy to the tune of trillions of dollars?

    How about putting me in a room with a billionaire to discuss inheritance tax: Warren Buffet?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Buffett#Taxes

    Would tears call him a middle-class lefty?

    Complain about this comment

  • 150. At 10:01am on 18 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    @poit:
    ""The plain science says we should be, if anything, cooling.
    Really? You base this on what? Let's look at what the ice core data says about the holocene."

    You mean the record WITH AGW?

    How does that prove that without AGW we'd be cooling?

    And bonus points for linking to IDunnoWhatsUpWithThis whose head honcho has blocked dissenting views:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/debunking-another-climate_b_244903.html

    And demanded that nobody use "his" data:

    http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x199920

    Also note that he still hasn't created the promised report from his "discoveries".

    Complain about this comment

  • 151. At 10:15am on 18 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "CO2 rise has never preceded temperature rise according to the ice cores."

    Except for the PETM, Larry.

    And how does that prove that if you burn CO2 that CO2 won't increase the temperatures because the temperature hasn't already increased?

    You don't.

    But you'll keep saying it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 152. At 10:21am on 18 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    Please join the petition to open up the source code and methods of scientists working in the field of Climate Science.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/please-show-us-your-code/

    Complain about this comment

  • 153. At 10:30am on 18 Dec 2009, poitsplace wrote:

    @U14260427 #149
    "You mean the economists who tanked the economy to the tune of trillions of dollars?"
    Actually the biggest destabilizing factors were the removal of down payment requirements (which obviously drives speculation through the roof), the ability to "self sponsor" (just say you earn enough) and other requirements like shifting to adjustable rate mortgages...thanks in a large part to...oh yeah, people trying to "help the poor" by getting them into homes when they really couldn't afford it. But hey...their intentions were good...right?

    @U14260427 #150
    You mean the record WITH AGW?
    BWAHAHAHAHA...No, I mean the one that shows how utterly trivial our warming is, that natural variation is AT LEAST an order of magnitude higher (if indeed that teeny, tiny blip is from AGW) and that, coupled with history, shows us that the extreme weather claims are utter garbage (for instance, the sahara was covered in grass and forests during the holocene optimum).

    Complain about this comment

  • 154. At 10:44am on 18 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    ""You mean the economists who tanked the economy to the tune of trillions of dollars?"
    Actually the biggest destabilizing factors were the removal of down payment requirement"

    Which was exploited by and lobbied for by economists.

    You haven't actually made any rebuttal except for a sly appeal to authority.

    Not very skeptical of you, is this.

    Maybe "skeptic" isn't the word.

    "No, I mean the one that shows how utterly trivial our warming is, that natural variation is AT LEAST an order of magnitude higher (if indeed that teeny, tiny blip is from AGW)"

    Uh, how does that prove that AGW isn't happening and that our civilisation didn't EXIST 65 million years BC.

    Clueless, poit, meet cluebat.

    Complain about this comment

  • 155. At 11:09am on 18 Dec 2009, justhuman wrote:

    Just been looking at a site that says "A draft copy of a confidential memo to the UNFCCC Secretariat has surfaced here at the Copenhagen climate talks that has some pretty disturbing analysis. The memo dated December 15, concludes that at this point in the climate talks:

    "Unless the remaining gap of around 1.9 to 4.2 Gt is closed and Parties commit themselves to strong action prior and after 2020, global emissions will remain on an unsustainable pathway that could lead to concentrations equal or above 550ppm with the related temperature raise around 3 degrees Celsius."

    Complain about this comment

  • 156. At 10:13am on 19 Dec 2009, icewombat wrote:

    G Bworn is at it again....

    Super Clown leads the world by offering a 42% cut in CO2 by 2020!

    Given that by 2020 ALL but 1 of our existing Nucular power stations will need to be decommisioned, it is very unlikley that a single of there replacements will have been built. For example for one key component there is only one company in the world that can produce it and that company currently has 7.5year order book waiting list!

    The severn estary dam will take over 10years to build, wind farms arent being built fast enough.

    Luckly slight of hand clown is offering 42% cut on 1990 levels but even so execpt for the "dash for gas" power in the 90's year on year the UK's CO2 production has gone UP!

    We even have an energy ministor that says using a Taxi (with its extra weight and driver and distance traveled) produces less CO2 than driving directly from A to B.

    So look forward to having to lower your heating by 10%, being forced pay to insulate your property, massive fuel tax rises, tax on air travel, etc

    all so our PM for the next 6 months can look good on the international stage!

    Oh and in addition to the 42% cut he has made us trhe largest donator into the EU climent fund... This charge will add to the existing 60% rise in our EU payments next year due to Blairs giving away our budget rebate.

    Can i just remind Brown which EU goverment has the largest current defesit, which EU goverment is STILL in resession, which EU goverment has in all but name had its credit rating lowered from AAA to AA?

    IT's the UK which is passing a massive debt burdan onto our children! Thanks a Lot brown!

    So look forward

    Complain about this comment

  • 157. At 12:00pm on 19 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @Yeah_Whatever #152

    I'll second that!

    This way The Team will also have to release ALL of their source code and methods of working, which will benefit all climate scientists, sceptic and alarmist alike

    Complain about this comment

  • 158. At 12:51pm on 19 Dec 2009, mrbill4431 wrote:

    Well said bandythebane.
    I really dont understand how many of these countries dont understand their own problems as much as we smart westerners do.
    The sea isnt rising. Thats impossible. Your just imagining it.
    Say they are. Learn about international trade relations between developed and developing countries. That may answer the second bit of your statement.
    Have you ever left your country? That might help too.

    Complain about this comment

  • 159. At 2:17pm on 19 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    Good, Chutney.

    So as you've done with the Hockey Stick et al and denounced them as wrong because it's hidden, you'll likewise count the "proofs" that the sun rather than greenhouse gasses are the cause of warming to also be wrong and unscientific?

    "The 1991 Science paper by Friis-Christensen & Lassen, work by Henrik Svensmark (Physical Review Letters), and calculations done by Scafetta & West (in the journals Geophysical Research Letters, Journal of Geophysical Research, and Physics Today) have inspired the idea that the recent warming is due to changes in the sun, rather than greenhouse gases"

    Complain about this comment

  • 160. At 2:25pm on 19 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "# 147. At 08:27am on 18 Dec 2009, MangoChutneyUKOK wrote:

    @ScudLewis #145

    My understanding is temperature rises trigger CO2 rises and the lag is around 800 years on average. "

    And the understanding is right but woefully incomplete.

    This doesn't say that CO2 cannot be released and doesn't say that if it's released there is no increase in temperature from it.

    Or can you prove this effect somehow?

    Now a little experiment for the scientists who post here and proclaim that H2O is far more important.

    Take a hypothetical earth with O2, N2 and H2O ONLY in the atmosphere in the same proportions as our earth has. Replace all the other trace gases with O2 to make up the tiny difference.

    H2O is a greenhouse gas and will trap heat, correct?

    Now start it off with the same temperature as the earth and see if this situation is stable.

    It isn't.

    Since there is less other greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, it's trapping less heat. So the atmosphere cools a little (even if just a tiny bit). But when it's colder, air cannot hold as much H2O which precipitates out as either rain or snow.

    But it now has a little less H2O in the atmosphere. H2O is a greenhouse gas and less of it means cooler temperatures.

    But when it's colder, air cannot hold as much H2O which precipitates out as either rain or snow.

    But it now has a little less H2O in the atmosphere. H2O is a greenhouse gas and less of it means cooler temperatures.

    But when it's colder, air cannot hold as much H2O which precipitates out as either rain or snow.

    .
    .
    .

    At some point no H2O is in the atmosphere and the earth is 33C cooler and a ball of ice.

    This doesn't require computer models. Just plain old paper science with equations and proven effects.

    So please tell us now how important CO2 is as a greenhouse gas and how it is negligible.

    Complain about this comment

  • 161. At 7:55pm on 19 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @Yeah_Whatever #160

    This doesn't say that CO2 cannot be released and doesn't say that if it's released there is no increase in temperature from it.

    Or can you prove this effect somehow?


    Who said CO2 cannot be released in any other way? Of course it can! Nothing to prove.

    And I agree there is warming caused by CO2 release, but it's a question of how much. Now, i know from past encounters with you, there is little point in debating this, so i won't

    Just answer one question:

    Where is the missing AGW signature predicted by the IPCC models? Try not to mention Santer or Sherwood, because we both know their "finding" the hotspot was mistaken

    Complain about this comment

  • 162. At 4:30pm on 01 Feb 2010, denoie denis wrote:

    The lack of a deal caused leaders to throw out the planned timetable for the final day of the two-week UN climate conference, with their informal talks delaying the opening of the regular session. But French President Nicolas Sarkozy, speaking after the unscheduled meeting with Obama and the other leaders, said progress in the climate talks was being held back by China. Greeting, Denoie [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

    Complain about this comment

  • 163. At 5:21pm on 16 Mar 2010, ad mind wrote:

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

  • 164. At 11:23pm on 18 Mar 2010, VTurner wrote:

    The city of Copenhagen is a climate crime scene with the guilty men and women fleeing to the airport in shame World leaders had a chance to change the world To seize the day and put us on a path way to peace and prosperity.Vturner

    Complain about this comment

  • 165. At 05:33am on 19 Mar 2010, Peter Muller wrote:

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

  • 166. At 00:11am on 02 Apr 2010, james german wrote:

    I'm from Germany and I had to laugh in cause of "100bn euros will be needed per year. The US says $100bn - a world of difference." This is a difference of 20 billion USD :-)
    Happy Easter, PKV

    Complain about this comment

  • 167. At 3:25pm on 08 Apr 2010, samdesouza wrote:

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

  • 168. At 05:42am on 09 Apr 2010, samdesouza wrote:

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

  • 169. At 05:48am on 01 Jun 2010, jcfreema wrote:

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

  • 170. At 9:37pm on 30 Aug 2010, Abbas wrote:

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

  • 171. At 4:23pm on 13 Sep 2010, Simon wrote:

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

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.