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

COP15: Lockouts and walk-outs

Richard Black | 20:46 UK time, Monday, 14 December 2009

queue_ap595.jpgInside, it was said to be a walk-out but wasn't. Outside, it wasn't supposed to be a lock-out, but was.

A confusing time for all inside and outside Copenhagen's Bella Center on the second Monday of UN climate talks here.

From the perspective of creature comforts, inside had to be the choice.

Inside, whatever problems we had deciphering the most confusing day's proceedings so far, we knew where our next meal could come from and where we could obtain internal relief.

If the accreditation machine hadn't broken down, it would only have taken the morning for the thousands upon thousands queuing up outside to discover they weren't going to get in.

As it was, it took many of them the whole day to inch forwards to the point where they were forced to give up hope.

The Bella Center here holds 15,000 people, the limit set by fire regulations. Unanticipated by the UN climate convention or the Danish host government, 45,000 people have registered to attend this summit - by far the largest sign-up for any of the UN climate conferences so far.

bears226afp.jpgTwenty-two thousand of them are from NGOs - civil society - the huge numbers a mark of how important this summit is for their agenda of change.

Erica Thompson, a researcher from Imperial College in London, came over on the bus expecting to witness at first hand history being made - or failing to be made, depending on what happens this week.

As it was, her experience of the supposedly seminal UN climate summit was nine-and-a-half hours in a queue.

Toilet breaks? Forget them. Food was procured by phoning inside and asking colleagues to buy some and bring it out - which of course prevented the person doing the bringing from getting back in.

Something to tell the grand-kids about? Hmm...

What Erica and the others would have witnessed if they'd made it in is a little difficult to describe. Or at least we journalists found it hard to describe to our editors, as they struggled to understand the meaning of the words we had filed.

Was it a walkout? Erm, not really. Was it a boycott? No. So what precisely had African nations and other G77 member governments done? They'd taken their political football and stowed it... where?

journos_ap226.jpgThe news reporting of the whatever it was - we plumped for "suspension" - evolved as fast as a 'flu strain hopping across a menagerie of susceptible species.

First, it was the Africans who had walked out. Then it became clear that the "walkout" had support from the G77/China bloc. Then it appeared it wasn't really a walkout. Then the talking was going to resume; then it had resumed. Only finally did it emerge that what talking there was carried only informal status and wasn't a formal negotiation.

Across the vast expanse of the Bella Center, confusion reigned.

In a semi-deserted hall, at one end I tracked down two delegates from African governments who assured me talks wouldn't resume until the next morning. Half a hall away, a knowledgeable person from a prominent charity told me a negotiating session was already underway.

Further down the corridor, it became clear that both were wrong. Talking there was, but negotiation there was not.

Apologies, on behalf of the entire journalistic enterprise here, if we presented a confused picture. It'll be neither the first nor the last time that happens in this amorphous, shape-shifting, jargon-raddled process.

But at least we could witness the stuff we'd come to observe, and could write what we observed, powered by sandwiches and coffee - luxurious circumstances compared with the passionate, parched and passless lockoutees on the wrong side of the Bella Center's cordon sanitaire.

Comments

or register to comment.

  • 1. At 9:28pm on 14 Dec 2009, Yorkurbantree wrote:

    Sounds like they need those supporters parks you get at the footy World Cup. You could get all the activists to power the big screens with a load of cycles. Carbon neutral and they'd keep warm - everyone's a winner!

    Complain about this comment

  • 2. At 9:36pm on 14 Dec 2009, Sparklet wrote:

    I suspect the result of this farce is already pre-determined but they could have organized the puppet-show a little better than this!! Not at all convincing!

    Complain about this comment

  • 3. At 9:37pm on 14 Dec 2009, ghostofsichuan wrote:

    Most countries do a fairly poor job of governing themselves, so international agreements represent this failing on a grander scale. China and India do not want agreements because they will impact growth and China would only want those items that would put the US and EU at a competitive disadvantage. As usual, it is about money....like Iraq wasn't about oil. In such circumstances, nothing, will be an achievable goal to be followed by finger pointing and a promise to do better next time. A stated time-bomb of environmental crisis that will be addressed by everyone agreeing not to look at a clock or changing the hands of the clock.. If only there were some way for the bankers to steal some money, I am sure it could all be worked out. Could you post a picture of the African representatives in their newly gifted mandarin robes?

    Complain about this comment

  • 4. At 9:52pm on 14 Dec 2009, Yorkurbantree wrote:

    Sparklet: 2 - You don't have trouble like this at the skeptics conference. For a start hardly anyone turns up and the skeptical activists make a principled stand by staying at home and doing nothing! (No problem = no need to do anything...). Plus the main lobbyists don't need to stand outside at the skeptical conference. Having paid for the event, the fossil fuel lobbyists get comfy seats indoors...

    Complain about this comment

  • 5. At 10:06pm on 14 Dec 2009, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    Keep going Richard,
    Don't forget we rely on your observations because we can't be there ourselves. Keep drinking coffee and eating porridge if you can get it, to keep warm and awake. You must take a pee, don't forget your poor old kidneys.

    I like the dig ghostofsichuan ;-) very naughty

    Complain about this comment

  • 6. At 10:37pm on 14 Dec 2009, thinkforyourself wrote:

    'In effect, we have redefined the task of science to be the discovery of laws that will enable us to predict events up to the limits set by the uncertainty principle.'

    Stephen Hawking - Physicist.(1988)

    Complain about this comment

  • 7. At 10:41pm on 14 Dec 2009, manysummits wrote:

    I just finished watching the Youtube environmental video "Home."

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqxENMKaeCU
    ------------------------------------------

    To ghostofsichuan and sensiblegrannie - Have you seen it?

    It is an hour and a half long. It is what jr4412 and davblo2 and I were trying to say in our Mayday Declaration.

    This video is of surpassing beauty - it has profoundly moved me.

    So much has happened so quickly in the last few years and decades - we are racing at ever inceasing speed into the unknown.

    But what we know is enough.

    We must change - very soon.

    Three-quarters of the way through the video, my thoughts were:

    \\\ Look What We Have Done !!! ///

    At the end:

    \\\ Look What Is Possible ///

    It is such a beautiful world. Why not become a part of it again?

    - Manysummits, Calgary -

    Complain about this comment

  • 8. At 10:52pm on 14 Dec 2009, Sparklet wrote:

    4. At 9:52pm on 14 Dec 2009, Yorkurbantree

    You seem a little confused, York., surely it would have been more principled for those attending the Copenhagen Conference to stay at home and do their debating via teleconferencing. Think of all that carbon they would have saved.

    HOW THEY 'SAVE THE WORLD'

    Complain about this comment

  • 9. At 11:11pm on 14 Dec 2009, Yorkurbantree wrote:

    Sparklet: 8 - Despite your rather obnoxious tone, you do have a point. Teleconferencing is the way foward for much that concerns business or diplomacy. However, an event of this magnitude would be beyond such a medium. However, a small event, like that skeptical conference, could be done through video conferencing!

    As usual you are presenting a false reality. If no environmental campaigners had gone, then there ability to nudge the politicians towards a more effective conclusion would have been diluted. However, only a few thousand campaigners and academics have gone (and all the ones I have read about have gone by public transport). The many millions of others who want action have stayed at home and not generated emmisions by popping over. You seem to be living in a fantasy world that all environmentalists want to ban all travel and live in yurts. Tempting as such an understanding of the world is to your ideological 'happy zone', the reality, as ever, is somewhat different.

    Complain about this comment

  • 10. At 11:38pm on 14 Dec 2009, Sparklet wrote:

    9. At 11:11pm on 14 Dec 2009, Yorkurbantree

    No, I present the reality, York, the falsities are all yours including the obnoxious tone!! AGW proponents simply don't like to ackowledge the utter hypocrisy this Conference represents.

    Complain about this comment

  • 11. At 00:08am on 15 Dec 2009, infiniti wrote:

    Teleconferencing is great in principle, but yeah the setup of the teleconferencing would have been a bigger deal than the negotiations.

    Also there are probably countries who would refuse to do anything except face to face.

    Complain about this comment

  • 12. At 00:17am on 15 Dec 2009, blunderbunny wrote:

    Just out of curiosity(I can’t help it I’m a scientist) I just want to ask a few questions of the proAGWer camp. I’ll admit they could be construed as a little philosophical, but as I said, I’m curious:

    Do you ever doubt?
    Do you ever wonder?
    Do you want to know how things work and why?

    All of these are essential for the progression of that which we call Science. To accuse any sceptical people of being unscientific shows either a very strangely advanced/adjusted sense of irony or a total lack of understanding of the scientific method.

    Recently from the AGW camp we’ve had the:

    ‘100% there was never a medieval warm period or a little ice age’,

    become the,

    ‘oh look there they are, I knew they were there all the time’

    and you don’t think that there’s anything funny going on?

    The whole basis of dendro-climatology has recently been called into question and there are real qualitative questions over the GISS and HadCru data and still not a doubt, not even a little one?

    Not sure if this link has ever made it into Richards blogs in the past, but it might prove interesting - It is, after all, on the BBC:

    news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8311000/8311373.stm

    To deny questioners the right to question is to deny knowledge itself and if you’re not careful, you’ll end up with the world that you truly deserve.

    Complain about this comment

  • 13. At 00:24am on 15 Dec 2009, bandythebane wrote:

    Infinity tried to tell me that the ocean's pH which is more than 8 need tot fall to 7 for acidification to take place.This begs the question "How can any chemical process in a strongly alkaline ocean be honestly described as acidification?"

    Complain about this comment

  • 14. At 01:01am on 15 Dec 2009, HumanityRules wrote:

    If I was an African delegate I'd walking out as well.
    It looks like we are about to lock developing countries into slow/no growth for the next 50 years. Many might say thats what we've done for the last 50 years only this time the moral justification will be saving the planet.

    Complain about this comment

  • 15. At 03:05am on 15 Dec 2009, Maria Ashot wrote:

    All the projections are accelerating:

    http://www.colorado.edu/news/r/fff17f8947aba3f5e502f0ed30adb9ee.html

    Question away. You have a right to question. And the rest of us have a right to choose to survive.

    Complain about this comment

  • 16. At 04:51am on 15 Dec 2009, lburt wrote:

    @Maria Ashot #15 "Accelerating"

    Again with the unfounded connection. All of your assertions are contingent on CO2 having a profound impact on the climate system...mostly from powerful positive feedbacks. You're "choosing to survive" is based on a largely disproved concept. They've had almost 20 years to find the high feedbacks they claim but they quite simply do not exist. If anything they APPEAR to be strongly...negative. Your entire assumpion of "accelerating" anthropogenic climate change is rendered incorrect. Basically your article there...if it applies to anything...it's just general warming.

    Beyond the feedbacks we run into two other problems that most people are also oblivious to. First off, you shouldn't expect something that produces changes in an energy gradient to work at 100% efficiency. While the CO2 absorption math suggests a theoretical maximum of 3.7 watts per meter (assuming CO2 is the ONLY gas absorbing the energy...which I'll get into later), if it changed the gradient it would cause (A) increased convection and (B) disproportionate absorption in...the limiting layer (ie, the tropopause would do MOST of the warming until it radiated more energy too). Obviously the 3.7 watts is too high a value.

    But then we come to the second problem. CO2 actually shares its spectrum with water vapor. Water vapor's spectrum is about three times the width as well. While both gases are limited to their own spectrum, the so-called "back radiation" from CO2 often gets intercepted by water vapor...and radiated within water vapor's spectrum. While water vapor's spectrum is only three times wider than CO2's...it emits about six times the energy that CO2 does in its unshared frequencies. CO2 is NOT emitting at 1/3 the levels of those unshared water vapor frequencies because it's trapping the energy...it's emitting at those levels mostly because it doesn't have the energy to begin with.

    CO2's forcing for a doubling has a theoretical maximum (before convection and other forces take their bite) of about 1.3 watts per square meter, not 3.7 and the rest is ALREADY leaving through other means.

    Complain about this comment

  • 17. At 05:03am on 15 Dec 2009, simon wrote:

    If they cannot organize a conference, how can we trust them save the world. What if they mess up and the world heats up 1.6c instead of 1.5c? Sorry, I couldn't resist that, but it is no more childish than suggesting with a straight face that governments can actually set and obtain limits on global warming with such impressive precision.

    Complain about this comment

  • 18. At 06:03am on 15 Dec 2009, subgenius wrote:

    poitsplace @ 16....totally wrong.

    (a) You’d still get an increase in greenhouse warming even if the atmosphere were saturated, because it’s the absorption in the thin upper atmosphere (which is unsaturated) that counts.

    (b) It’s not even true that the atmosphere is actually saturated with respect to absorption by CO2.

    (c) Water vapor doesn’t overwhelm the effects of CO2 because there’s little water vapor in the high, cold regions from which infrared escapes, and at the low pressures there water vapor absorption is like a leaky sieve, which would let a lot more radiation through were it not for CO2.

    (d) These issues were satisfactorily addressed by physicists 50 years ago, and the necessary physics is included in all climate models.

    Complain about this comment

  • 19. At 06:38am on 15 Dec 2009, lburt wrote:

    @subgenius

    I didn't say it was saturated...did you even read what I wrote? I said that CO2's energy output is so low partly because much of its energy gets sidetracked into and emitted within the spectrum of water vapor. Water vapor absorbs CO2's spectrum...but reradiates 2/3 of it at frequencies CO2 can't touch. It's a one-way interaction at the point that water vapor is radiating into space since there is nothing to stop those frequencies.

    Complain about this comment

  • 20. At 08:11am on 15 Dec 2009, c watkin wrote:

    What a spectacular farce. while the world freezes, Copenhagen fiddles!
    Global politics will cause far more damage to the environment than any CO2 level ever could.
    At least climate change is natural, this gathering of incompetants in Copenhagen are anything but.
    Bring on the real scientists who understand we humans are but a blip in the earths history and climate change is more to do with the deep slumbering solar cycle 24 than human activity.
    climate change has, and always will, happen. It's natural and no amount of misguided and carbon tax planning politics will ever change that.
    In fact, prepare for a possible mini ice age if solar cycle 25 is as bad as 24.

    Complain about this comment

  • 21. At 08:14am on 15 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #7 manysummits wrote:

    "it is what jr4412 and davblo2 and I were trying to say in our Mayday Declaration."

    I wasn't around in May, so I don't know what your "Mayday Declaration" was (or if it was an "SOS" with no particluar date) BUT:

    When people who are trying to answer a factual question make declarations, they put themselves in the position where it is hard -- embarrassing, at least -- to change their minds. They dig a hole for themselves that they find it hard to climb out of. That's one of the reasons why there is unanimity at the Copenhagen clown convention on the supposed "science": everyone has already publicly declared "where they stand".

    We humans all want to be right, and that's a good urge. Unfortunately, we all want to have been right as well, and that's a terrible urge. One might almost define "wisdom" as the recognition that that must be resisted in oneself.

    Complain about this comment

  • 22. At 08:54am on 15 Dec 2009, jon112dk wrote:

    Just about sums it up....

    FORTY FIVE THOUSAND (!) 'environmentalists' fly in on gas guzzling jet planes to a conference that can only hold 15,000.

    ... and the only progress is the worlds biggest polluter makes a 'binding commitment' to INCREASE it's emissions.

    This makes the Kyoto joke agreement look positively competent.

    Complain about this comment

  • 23. At 09:01am on 15 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    @ sub genius #18

    "(d) These issues were satisfactorily addressed by physicists 50 years ago, and the necessary physics is included in all climate models."

    Oh, right, these would be the same models that didn't include clouds and TO THIS DAY cannot even accuratley predict past events.

    Perhaps there's more going on in the physics than you realise?

    Complain about this comment

  • 24. At 10:29am on 15 Dec 2009, SamuelPickwick wrote:

    15 Maria - the story you link to is another "ice melts in summer" story.
    ("frozen blocks of silt and peat containing 50 to 80 percent ice -- which are toppled into the Beaufort Sea during the summer").

    While the projections of the scaremongers may be accelerating, the data shows that warming is decelerating, see
    http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/

    One of the interesting things to emerge from the leaked emails was that at least one of the climate scientists admits that they can't account for the recent lack of warming.




    Complain about this comment

  • 25. At 11:06am on 15 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    ClimateGate gets interesting

    America's DOE orders all contractors etc to preserve all documents relating to CRU

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/14/doe-sends-a-litigation-hold-notice-regarding-cru-to-employees-asking-to-preserve-documents/

    Complain about this comment

  • 26. At 11:09am on 15 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    BBC journalists decide scientific questions by asking: "Which side are the good guys on?"

    Gore and Democrats, good -- Bush and Republicans, bad.

    Thus Matt Frei seemed perplexed on last night's "Americana" (BBC World Service) to find that American Evangelical Christians (definitely bad) are evenly split on climate change. One the one hand, many are sceptics, therefore climate change must be happening. On the other hand, some think climate change is actually happening, so it might not be happening after all… Will not compute!

    Luckily, a token Republican redneck (in the form of a lumberjack from Wisconsin) was able to settle the issue before smoke started coming of Matt Frei's ears.

    Complain about this comment

  • 27. At 11:21am on 15 Dec 2009, GeeDeeSea wrote:

    @bowmanthebard #26
    But we know from your comment the other day that you're not very good at reflecting accurately what has been said.

    Complain about this comment

  • 28. At 11:33am on 15 Dec 2009, manysummits wrote:

    New 'Open Access' Article' published by the 'Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences' (USA), in collaboration with the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

    Contributed by James Hansen, October 15, 2009 (sent for review July 6, 2009)

    Abstract: ("Black soot and the survival of Tibetan glaciers")

    "We find evidence that black soot aerosols deposited on Tibetan
    glaciers have been a significant contributing factor to observed
    rapid glacier retreat. Reduced black soot emissions, in addition to
    reduced greenhouse gases, may be required to avoid demise of
    Himalayan glaciers and retain the benefits of glaciers for seasonal
    fresh water supplies."

    http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/ (see Dec 11, 2009 - 'pdf')

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 29. At 11:44am on 15 Dec 2009, manysummits wrote:

    In amplification of Maria Ashot's post #15:

    "Multiyear Arctic ice is effectively gone: expert (Reuters)"
    {Ottawa, Oct 29, 2009)

    "David Barber, Canada's Research Chair in Arctic System Science at the University of Manitoba, said the ice was melting at an extraordinarily fast rate."...

    "I've never seen anything like this in my 30 years of working in the high Arctic ... it was very dramatic," he said."

    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE59S3LT20091029?sp=true
    -----------

    For graphs and further information:

    http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/08/arctic-multiyear-sea-ice-nsidc-david-barber/

    - Manysummits -



    Complain about this comment

  • 30. At 11:58am on 15 Dec 2009, manysummits wrote:

    Now that the rational scientific business at hand is out of the way (posts #'s 28 & 29), I can speak irrationally.

    In watching the youtube environmental video "Home", I was struck by the video's great beauty, and its affirmation of the saying of one of the world's finest mountaineers, Reinhold Messner, who was also an environmental political campaigner in the Green Party of the German Parliament for several years.

    Reinhold left politics, saying in effect he had been able to accomplish little there, and walked to the South Pole across Antarctica to restore his sense of self. Here is an excerpt from his book, "Antarctica" (1991):

    "These weeks of living with unadulterated nature gave me again that self-confidence which earlier, before mankind and his technology had 'subjugated' the world, had fulfilled each living, feeling creature. It seemed to me as if I were restored to that time and that state when nature alone was 'God.'...

    Man was obliged to forget to conserve nature when he tried to perceive it rationally, instead of emotionally and instinctively."
    ---------------

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 31. At 12:04pm on 15 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    @28, 29 and probably 30...

    28- the article is missing from the link. got another linky?

    29- interesting, but irrelevant to the co2 argument.

    Complain about this comment

  • 32. At 12:09pm on 15 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    scratch that manysummits- i managed to get access to it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 33. At 12:13pm on 15 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    ok re-28

    there's a hell of a lot of asssumtions in that paper...

    Complain about this comment

  • 34. At 12:20pm on 15 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100019927/climategate-al-gore-lies-again-but-this-time-no-one-believes-him/

    Complain about this comment

  • 35. At 12:24pm on 15 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100019894/climategate-the-ailing-mainstream-media-are-committing-suicide-by-ignoring-the-scoop-of-the-century/

    Complain about this comment

  • 36. At 12:26pm on 15 Dec 2009, AngusPangus wrote:

    What's the weather like Richard?

    Complain about this comment

  • 37. At 12:52pm on 15 Dec 2009, CComment wrote:

    Relax - Gordon Brown's going 2 days early to save the world - problems solved. Caledonian Comment

    Complain about this comment

  • 38. At 1:07pm on 15 Dec 2009, bandythebane wrote:

    I don't think Labmonkey is necessarily right or at least won't be for long. The Mail Online for example has done a Special Investigation by David Rose which is great.

    Not only does it give the best and most accessible explanation I have seen of what "Mike's trick" to "hide the decline" was and why it is important, but it is also onto the case of what is wrong with the temperature data. It explains quite clearly for example the "Darwin" issue and shows by this why neither the Met Office nor CRU are in a position to fix it (even if you could trust them not simply to do a cover up).

    At this rate it is only a matter of time before they are onto the missing "hot spot" and the climate sensitivity problems with the IPCC's "assumed" and almost certainly over-estimated feedbacks.

    The next one after that will no doubt be the models themselves. If the "Team" aren't able to do a relatively simple dats collection exercise with integrity, what kind of horrors can you imagine will be found in the models? The scope for selecting only models that suit your case and rejecting those that don't is infinitely greater and so far no one (except possibly Bjorn Lomborg) has got anywhere near doing an overview.

    Complain about this comment

  • 39. At 1:08pm on 15 Dec 2009, DisgustedOfMitcham2 wrote:

    Why on earth do so many people need to go to the summit? Presumably having flown around most of the world to get there?

    Does anyone know what the carbon footprint of the summit looks like? I do wonder how much of it is really about trying to do what's best for the planet and how much of it is just political posturing.

    Complain about this comment

  • 40. At 1:09pm on 15 Dec 2009, EuroSider wrote:

    OK....
    The scientists will have their say.
    The delegates will have their say.
    The protesters will have their say.
    The politicians will make promises they know they will not keep but make good headlines.
    Everyone will go away self-satisfied that they have done their bit for the planet.
    And nothing will change.......

    All talk.....no action...well not in my backyard, please!

    Complain about this comment

  • 41. At 1:16pm on 15 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    "Mr Gore’s office later admitted that the 75 per cent figure was one used by Dr Maslowksi as a “ballpark figure” several years ago in a conversation with Mr Gore."

    This illustrates an error often committed by statisticians: the confusion of relative frequency and credibility (or "degree to which a hypothesis ought to be believed").

    When a particular type of event occurs repeatedly, it's sometimes possible to say with some numerical accuracy what proportion will have a particular feature. For example, if two dice are thrown repeatedly, roughly a sixth of the throws will result in "doubles". In the very long run, with many throws of fair dice, the proportion of throws that result in "doubles" tends to get closer to one sixth. (Although the number of throws that actually results in "doubles" tends to get further away from one sixth -- think about it!) This is a measure of relative frequency.

    Credibility or "degree to which a hypothesis ought to be believed" is quite different from relative frequency. Anyone (like Gore) who thinks accurate numerical estimates can be given of a single event like the Arctic ice melting completely is either confused himself, or else is trying to confuse other people. The Artic ice will either melt away completely, or else it won't melt away completely, and if it does we do not know when exactly. Nor do we know "how much we know" with any greater accuracy!

    The ridiculously accurate-sounding estimates of mere credibility we hear from the AGW camp -- such as "warming 90% certain" are presumably got with a "show of hands" -- as if the proportion of "scientists who believe X" is a measure of the degree to which X ought to be believed! Laughable!

    Complain about this comment

  • 42. At 1:35pm on 15 Dec 2009, Roland D wrote:

    Did I miss somewhere the BBC's coverage of the IPCC chairman's conflicts of interest?

    Complain about this comment

  • 43. At 1:48pm on 15 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    @ 38.

    Glad you too picked up on the Mail investigation.

    I'm amazed, though not suprised, at just how much effort is going into ignoring this issue and 'blazing on' with copenhagen in the hope a binding deal can be signed before people look into things too closely.

    Regardless of what any pro-AGW proponent would say and regardless of whatever other qualms ant-AGW/Sceptics have, the data has been called into question. The data ALL AGW policy is based on.

    The sensible thing would have been to postpone copenhagen pending an investigation (oh but they can't do that- think of the children...)

    Yes there are other data sets out there, but none are as important and those too are showing (where the data has been made public, most is being held private- illegally so) significant evidence of tampering (NZ, AUS).

    The whole AGW case is an inverse pyramid based on this data, highly suspect models and political motives. Remove the credibility of that data (which it certainly looks like at present) and AGW, or at least our understanding of it, ceases to exist.

    Please note, this is not the same as saying the climate isn't changing (though i contest 'global warming'), or the same as lets all rely on oil, or the same as lets pollute and trash the earth- just to head the usual responses off.

    Finally the continual refusal of the BBC to cover this story at anything other than a perfunctionary level still disappoints me. I used to come to the BBC as my first call for everything, now i find, i just can't trust their impartiality- as regardless of your stance- this warrants full and public investigation (even if it is just to re-inforce the validity of the data).

    Complain about this comment

  • 44. At 2:01pm on 15 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @Elizabeth Watt #38

    At this rate it is only a matter of time before they are onto the missing "hot spot" and the climate sensitivity problems with the IPCC's "assumed" and almost certainly over-estimated feedbacks.

    which is something i have been banging on about for over a year

    read my earlier posts

    Complain about this comment

  • 45. At 3:25pm on 15 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    i'd jump to the next thread people, you're not going to want to miss this one...

    Complain about this comment

  • 46. At 4:55pm on 15 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    @ ghost no. 3:

    'If only there were some way for the bankers to steal some money, I am sure it could all be worked out.'

    check out the chicago climate exchange, part owned by, among others, Al Gore and Goldman Sachs.

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

    Blood and Gores company. you know, the one that benfits from huge govt. funding as a result the goracles endless eco-shilling.

    There is a lot of money riding on the 350pm cap becoming international law.

    Complain about this comment

View these comments in RSS

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.