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

COP15: Saving the planet or saving face?

Richard Black | 15:46 UK time, Friday, 18 December 2009

1641 CET: We're into a strange dark limbo-land here.

The draft political agreement that leaders are supposed to sign today has gone through more changes than Eva Longoria at an awards ceremony.

UN climate conferenceThe latest version, we're told, sheds many of the frills. It's a jeans and t-shirt job compared with the detailed couture of earlier today.

What we have, we're told, doesn't contain a commitment to a legally-binding treaty, doesn't endorse an explicit temperature target, doesn't have a target date for finalising a deal, and doesn't any more aim for emission curbs to be verifiable.

But in my inbox I have two more drafts, sent by kind and concerned people - I can't thank you publicly for obvious reasons, but your help in turning this secretive affair into the "open and transparent" process the Danes have repeatedly claimed it to be is much appreciated.

They contain different measures, in various mixtures. They appear to have been drawn up by different countries - and you can guess which part of the world they come from.

So what we have, in a nutshell, is this.

Two years ago, governments committed to agreeing a new deal to combat climate change - "full and sustained implementation of the UN climate convention" - by the end of today.

In back rooms now, officials are drafting and re-drafting documents in an attempt to find a form of words - any form of words - that will allow them to get out of here clutching a piece of paper.

In the words of one long-time observer, "we are into face-saving territory".

Wasn't that supposed to be "planet-saving"?

Comments

or register to comment.

  • 1. At 4:01pm on 18 Dec 2009, Freeman wrote:

    As expected. One big jolly for all concerned where naff all gets agreed, politicians put their hands in our pockets again and there is mutual backslapping before they all shuffle home again to say how well they did.

    Complain about this comment

  • 2. At 4:05pm on 18 Dec 2009, minuend wrote:

    Oh Dear, oh dear, Richard Black is really upset.

    Instead of Hopenhagen we have Dopenhagen.

    No commitment to a legally-binding treaty. No endorsement of an explicit temperature target. No target date for finalising a deal. No verification of emission curbs.

    To think that the BBC has spent £millions of licence payer's money to bring us this farce to tv and radio audiences.

    Copenhagen was always about money. You completely forgot all about Mr. Black as you were doing your usual scaremongering bit.

    Your activism Mr. Black now makes you look completely stupid.

    Complain about this comment

  • 3. At 4:19pm on 18 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    unsuprising to be honest.

    Complain about this comment

  • 4. At 4:28pm on 18 Dec 2009, jr4412 wrote:

    Richard Black.

    "So what we have, in a nutshell, is .."

    words.

    that cheap and plentiful commodity.

    Complain about this comment

  • 5. At 4:30pm on 18 Dec 2009, SamuelPickwick wrote:

    For once I agree with Richard. Obviously, the politicians have to come away with some kind of piece of paper so they can pretend the jamboree has been a success. But I think it will be a face-saving exercise with no real meaningful substance.

    Now to part company with Richard - I am quite happy if this is the outcome.


    Complain about this comment

  • 6. At 4:32pm on 18 Dec 2009, Coldcall wrote:


    "Wasn't that supposed to be "planet-saving"?"

    If the planet really needed that sort of hollywood scripted saving, we'd probably manage it. What this COPout tells us is that this was always a grand political project, no more and no less.

    The science nor the planet has anything to do with it. This is about humans, greed, ideology and power.

    Complain about this comment

  • 7. At 4:48pm on 18 Dec 2009, Have your say Rejected wrote:

    I've just read on another news source the Copenhagen summit is dead in the water, China, India and Brazil have walked....

    Complain about this comment

  • 8. At 4:56pm on 18 Dec 2009, Zydeco wrote:

    Perhaps they can re-convene in 2050, by which time they should be able to tell us they were wrong and offer to refund all the green taxes they have taken from us in the meanwhile.

    Mind you, by then the World's population will have increased to a level whereby we will need to ration breathing or, more likely be hit by an oxygen tax.

    Complain about this comment

  • 9. At 5:04pm on 18 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    anyone else thinking of chamberlain waving a piece of paper that 'proved' his mission was successful?

    Complain about this comment

  • 10. At 5:06pm on 18 Dec 2009, Plato-says wrote:

    Oh dear, there there, never mind :D

    Complain about this comment

  • 11. At 5:08pm on 18 Dec 2009, John wrote:

    And yet more common sense from the Wall Street Journal.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398304574598230426037244.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

    Complain about this comment

  • 12. At 5:20pm on 18 Dec 2009, AngusPangus wrote:

    Hi Richard,

    Interesting to learn from your blog that you read the Guardian and that your go-to people for comment and opinion are Friends of the Earth, Green Party environmental activists and the like. How depressingly unsurprising.

    Climate change is a controversial topic and the BBC should be very careful, IMHO, to avoid not just bias, but the appearance of bias in its reporting of such controversial subjects. You appear to have clear political views on this subject, which is of course fine, but it does mean that you should excuse yourself from reporting on issues where people may think that your political views might affect your objectivity. For instance, I find it difficult to imagine that the BBC would countenance having a reporter working on, say Northern Ireland (more so in years past) or Israel/Palestine if that person had clearly displayed a strong preference for one side of the argument or the other.

    BBC coverage of this issue should be objective and it is plainly not.

    Yes, the fig leaf will be "the science is settled" and therefore "we need to reflect that in our reporting". But that is nonsense. Even Gavin and Mike, your RealScientist chums over at RealClimate throw their hands up in horror and say words to the effect "whoever said the science is settled? We certainly never said any such thing". I've even seen it said over there that the "science is settled" mantra is actually a denialist myth, rather than something that was ever said by those pressing for controls on carbon.

    So there is no excuse for treating this as a settled subject where we can move on from discussing the science to deciding what we need to do to combat the threat. And therefore having agenda-driven reporting is inexcusable.

    Complain about this comment

  • 13. At 5:34pm on 18 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    Copenhagan Dead?

    It seem so:

    http://www.domain-b.com/environment/20091218_manmohan_singh.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 14. At 5:36pm on 18 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @TOOF #9

    Yeah, i thought that too "I have in my hand a piece of paper"

    Complain about this comment

  • 15. At 5:56pm on 18 Dec 2009, Solarping wrote:

    "Time has a rhythm that cannot be measured”
    Parallel is out hemispheric is in,
    kingdoms where built around it,
    Einstein refused to research it,
    Fountains of wisdom about to open,
    Yet more data is needed to understand it.....

    Complain about this comment

  • 16. At 6:07pm on 18 Dec 2009, Glob wrote:

    This is like a football reporter declaring which side they want to win.

    Back to Climategate next week, let's hope

    Complain about this comment

  • 17. At 6:24pm on 18 Dec 2009, Maria Ashot wrote:

    brazenearlybird, Thank you for the link to the Wall Street Journal article, to remind us of who the real enemy is.

    You know America is in trouble when I find it easier to agree with the Venezuelan position, than one of the most widely read of American periodicals.

    Then again, it was WSJ that offered comfort to Saakashvili in his mad rush to see if maybe we could actually trigger World War Three instead of just having an orderly Beijing Olympics.

    It was the WSJ that kept demanding "economic war on Putin's Russia" -- months before the consequences of that clarion call contributed to an abrupt global financial meltdown. Who can say with certainty that the addition of an economic standoff between the two sides brought into conflict by Bush-Cheney policy in the Black Sea region did not provide the critical jolt of hostility in an already unstable environment, toppling a fragile financial architecture to the detriment of the vast majority of human beings?

    We have carefully extricated ourselves from the rubble of that poor judgement, yet here comes the WSJ again, aligning with the most extreme elements of the Palin fringe.

    Proving, once again, why America is not in any kind of position to "lead on climate" -- has zero credibility in that capacity -- and, indeed, will only make matters worse if any future body or trust is situated on its shores.

    To put it in the terms of our youngest son: "We are only allowed to repeat the exact answer given in the textbook. If we come up with a better answer, a more complex answer, or a shorter way to solve a problem, we are marked wrong." That is the USA today, as it operates in some of its "better" school environments. Trust me, you don't want these people telling you how to fix things. They will kill anything in committee by talking it to death.

    As for this update, Mr Black, thank you for having the stamina to keep us abreast.

    Obviously, just any old thing won't do. But the EU has considerable leverage, still, and into the foreseeable, and I expect that, from hereon in, the EU will not hesitate to exert that leverage with maximum force against any further intransigence.

    These kinds of meetings, as fractious as they are, also become vital intelligence-gathering opportunities. The names & attitudes of participants are fully exposed.

    It is absolutely important to prevail. Forcing something through, especially against a noisy opposition, becomes that much more definitive. It shows that there will be no stopping the side that is determined to put an end to the old, destructive mindset.

    But then the pressure must be maintained. And there have to be actual teeth in the leverage: for example, the EU could impose significant surcharges on flights to and from the obstreperous states. There are many, many different ways to go about shaping the economy of the planet -- and there are compelling reasons not to hold back, as we can see.

    That is why the WSJ is running scared, and publishing the same loopy slurs. They can't come up with any actual argument, so they revert to the smear. Only it's not sticking.

    Complain about this comment

  • 18. At 6:27pm on 18 Dec 2009, Maria Ashot wrote:

    Meanwhile, Her Majesty has taken the train, like any other commuter, setting an example for the rest of us.

    God bless Her and Her Family!

    Complain about this comment

  • 19. At 6:45pm on 18 Dec 2009, ulteriormotive wrote:

    @12 This is a blog, don't expect the author to be impartial. See that description at the top of the page?

    "I'm Richard Black, environment correspondent for the BBC News website. This is my take on what's happening to our shared environment as the human population grows and our use of nature's resources increases."

    I happen to believe, along with the vast majority of scientists, that climate change is a real threat to our planet. You might as well claim that the theory of evolution vs creationism is still up for debate, or that the question of the earth being older than 6,000 years is not 'settled'. Utter, utter tosh.

    The science IS settled; the problem is you don't want to believe it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 20. At 7:05pm on 18 Dec 2009, Maria Ashot wrote:

    Well, having read the fourth draft, there is actually quite a bit in it that I can compliment the authors for:

    They try to take into account a number of positions that until just hours ago seemed mutually exclusive.

    It is a dense, yet coherent document which does not take forever to plow through. Each sentence actually has meaning, and contributes something.

    As you say, it is a no-frills document, more sonnet than ballad. And, like a good sonnet, actually rich with content.

    The first paragraph has a phrasing problem, but it manages to say "below 2 degrees C" which is of course what we would prefer to hear.

    The 80 percent target for 2050 is more realistic than Señоr Morales's "cien por cien" demand.

    Is it doable? Yes, actually, if we pull together and start right away.

    The South Korean offer was a good one.

    There is every reason why all of us who are committed to this cause need to come up with a list of Earth-friendly US companies, and only do business with those. Ditto as far as American political celebrities are concerned. This is a life or death issue: we are allowed to get hard-nosed about it.

    A huge educational push is bound to follow. But let's face it: most humans alive today know there is a very good reason for taking action now.

    And this document, even in the form being presented here, does stand for a very vivid shift in attitude and priorities -- for all the economies.

    Americans have their work cut out for them. They have votes, and resources, and no shortage of politically ambitious and even charismatic personalities. They have a democracy. Let them address what must be addressed, internally, and clean up their reputation along with their landscape.

    I do believe we are pretty much good to go here, and I still believe thanks, congratulations, and kudos are due to the people who were relentless in pursuit of this -- beginning with the EU, and of course, the UK, and Her Majesty's Government.

    And yes, the Royal Family, and all the Royal Families, and the Imperial Family of Japan, head that list of enlightened & committed citizens. Indeed. They have earned that right. And for that, we all owe them a great deal, because it is precisely in historic moments of this kind that it becomes apparent why they are as important as they are: that it is not mere "symbolism" -- that there is an intrinsic moral authority attached to wearing the mantle of moral example, at least on the most crucially vital issues.

    Certainly, the leadership of China, India, Russia, Brazil -- and this new President of the United States of America, Barack Obama -- have redefined their office as well, by their tenacity. And we all know, don't we, that they have some amongst them who would have loved nothing better than to see this kind of Copenhagen Accord fall through.

    So, really, to the Leaders: well done. Now sign it and relax. It will all translate into productive Action: we'll make sure of that.

    Complain about this comment

  • 21. At 7:26pm on 18 Dec 2009, Maria Ashot wrote:

    The news reports on the Russian websites are exhibiting a marked change in tone, and going for greater substance in the reports. They indicate a deal "with at least 100 signatory nations" is a certainty.

    Considering the Russian media were lining up with the WSJ just a couple of days ago, that is a very encouraging sign.

    It IS progress, even if those of us who have been in on this struggle for decades would have preferred to see greater strides taken, and more smoothly. Then again, the reason we have the problem we do have is obvious.

    May I reming you it took over six hundred million dollars and more than two years of campaigning just to get this American President elected -- just to bring the American side in, this far.

    The report that solar panels will be installed on the White House roof is actually extremely significant: it may matter more, in the long term, than some of the additional phrases we would have liked to have articulated. Leadership by example is indeed compelling in signaling true change.

    So, and still: well done! Please sign without further ado.

    Complain about this comment

  • 22. At 7:35pm on 18 Dec 2009, Dempster wrote:

    9. At 5:04pm on 18 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:
    'anyone else thinking of chamberlain waving a piece of paper that 'proved' his mission was successful?'

    Yes me.

    Complain about this comment

  • 23. At 8:43pm on 18 Dec 2009, Dempster wrote:

    Maria Ashot

    You're not a real blogger.

    Complain about this comment

  • 24. At 8:50pm on 18 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    'the Royal Family, and all the Royal Families, and the Imperial Family of Japan, head that list of enlightened & committed citizens. Indeed.'

    gotta admit this made me chuckle!

    a cynic is what an idealist calls a realist.

    Complain about this comment

  • 25. At 10:11pm on 18 Dec 2009, Its Raining Sven - No More Sousa wrote:

    I don't know if the science is settled or not, but I suspect that it is fixed.

    Complain about this comment

  • 26. At 03:48am on 19 Dec 2009, Bisky wrote:

    If you care about the poor, why do you want to set up world tax and government run by the IMF and world bank as specified in the treaty. They have bribed small governments and hijacked countries to steal their resources. Those frightening Satanic criminals are not going to change the weather for you I'm afraid. And they beat your Lord Monckton and knocked him out. Are you going to stand for UN cops beating up members of your House Of Lords. Has the world gone mad?

    Complain about this comment

  • 27. At 2:11pm on 19 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    Maria, you'll find when you start making arguments they can't refute or show too much knowledge or present it too clearly, those glorifying their ignorance (rather like Clive James does when he proclaims he knows nothing of the climate science but then starts talking about it anyway) will try to silence you or hound you out.

    I've had both "You're SOMEONE ELSE and we hounded you out and killed your account" and also "don't listen to him, he's not making any sense".

    It seems they've gone for "you're one of the Illuminati" gambit for you.

    Infinity is being done over by the "death of a thousand repeats".

    If you're TOO effective at showing up the denialist tropes, you're hounded.

    Complain about this comment

  • 28. At 11:39pm on 19 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

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

  • 29. At 09:12am on 20 Dec 2009, Arnt Christian Teigen wrote:

    When I raise my voice in a public zone, like this, I hope to find respect as I intend to give it. I'm not trying to be better than anyone, but I'm trying to perform writing at my best. I'm not overwhelmed by the tone of interaction. It could obviously be more polite. We cannot expect our leaders to be better than us. At least not from now on. Rather, we need to act as examples for them. In other words. Integrate yourself, or pull your self together, if that is what you prefer.

    I must say that I'm surprised to find Richard Black's Earth Watch with such ease; starting to browse for some qualitative news on the Copenhagen conferance at the "top" of bbc,co.uk. Actually not expecting to find much. The representants of the big Media, seem to mirror that of the world leaders quite well. At least I was scared after browsing for comments in the american media. Also the major public channels in Norway are reluctant to make statements, although the environment organisations of the World are pretty much in unison in expressing that the summit has been close to a (the) catastrophy. The low priority the conclusion in Copenhagen now has got,for instant at CNN.com, is to my reading actually a signal for how bad the result really is. That CNN chooses to be loyal to the world leader (?) is on the other hand what to expect. In this context Mr. Richard Black's journal is inducing a sort of last beam of hope. This, my hope, is because it is, as I can read, an honest voice. And that is a daring voice in the midst of so much hipocricis. An hipocricis we cannot expect our politicians to save us from. A hipocrisis almost synonymous to the climate crisis. In my view to such an extant that it winds up the question about to what degree the climate change is generated or speeded up because of "dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system."

    Therefore it is with great gratitude I write this comment.

    I don't prefer to look at Television too much, so I don't have much to say about the arguments on Mr. Black being biased, or showing his political symphaties. But in regard of the agenda for the Copenhagen-meetings, it must be clear that it was expected to come somewhat further than that of Kyoto or Rio di Janeiro. It seems to me, quite clearly, that Mr. Black simply put the outcome of those meetings as basis when assessing this years summit. That somebody consequently find his reporting as alarming, and even difficult to swallow is understandable. But it can hardly be said that a BBC reporter, with Mr. Black's apparant insight in the issues and politics concerning the matter of environmental politics, is biased in regarding the climate change as related to human omissions, and deforestation, or simply realise that we as humans of our magnitude and level of energy consumption has a major impact on the global ecology. If that is considered biased to such an extent that his credibility is drawn into question, UN is drawn into question, all earlier summits on climate change is similarily questionable, and everything is farcical from beginning to end. Maybe it is. Even though, or especially thus; perhaps honesty and creating an environment in which truthfulness may thrive is in accordance with a change that... and so on....

    Complain about this comment

  • 30. At 1:20pm on 31 Dec 2009, David Blake wrote:

    Hi Chaps,

    The statement that "The science is settled" - is so un-scientific it takes my breath away. All science should be totally open to criticism, and it terrifies me that the BBC is no longer reporting anti-global warming stories. This is deeply ironic when the BBC then criticises the Iranian/Chinese/Zimbabwean governments for not having open media. Smell some coffee guys.

    Why aren't you chaps reporting that the warming in the troposphere is NOT acting as expected according to greenhouse theory. Even the US Climate Change Science Program (an organisation like so many others whose very existence depends on ensuring that global warming is seen as man-made) reluctantly report:

    "For global averages, observed changes from 1958 through 2004 exhibit amplification: i.e., they show greater warming trends in the troposphere compared with the surface. Since 1979, however, the situation is different: most data sets show slightly greater warming at the surface. "

    This is HUGE NEWS. In global warming theory, the greatest warming should occur in the troposphere. The report found in many instances that it was the opposite: in some cases the troposphere COOLED, while the surface warmed. Conclusion? CO2 is NOT warming the atmosphere. Go figure.

    BTW The report is hilarious in the way they try to squirm out of the results. Talking of "anomalies" and "unexpected results", even admitting to "adjusting" the results but were UNABLE to remove the "cooling bias".

    Talking of bias...BBC get your act together. Lets get back to reporting the facts no matter how much they disagree with your political leanings. Mr Black I realise that this would be like a Turkey voting for Christmas - no man made warming and you're out of a job right? - but at least TRY for some impartiality.

    Complain about this comment

  • 31. At 1:33pm on 31 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    Burble:

    "The statement that "The science is settled" - is so un-scientific it takes my breath away."

    So the science of cause and effect is settled is unscientific?

    Oddly enough you're right: "the science is settled" IS unscientific. And said by those who deny the science and AGW that is the consequence of it.

    What is "the science"?

    Answer that.

    " All science should be totally open to criticism,"

    Including whether the earth is a flat disc or whether the Sun is the centre of our solar system?

    " and it terrifies me that the BBC is no longer reporting anti-global warming stories."

    Because they are just that: stories. The BBC also don't report anti-Jew stories. Or anti-womens'-rights stories.

    Complain about this comment

  • 32. At 1:34pm on 31 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "alas lord monckton has a hereditary title and is not a memebr of the house o lords."

    Alas he's not a member of the house of lords.

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 33. At 1:40pm on 31 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "This is HUGE NEWS. In global warming theory, the greatest warming should occur in the troposphere."

    The theory doesn't say that.

    Try reading the IPCC report and the scientific basis in the WG report.

    "Why aren't you chaps reporting that the warming in the troposphere is NOT acting as expected according to greenhouse theory"

    Because it's not true.

    "Talking of "anomalies" and "unexpected results", even admitting to "adjusting" the results but were UNABLE to remove the "cooling bias"."

    Uh, it's ALWAYS been "anomalies". And where are they talking of "adjusting"? In the CRU emails? Well, try reading the entire email rather than what you've been spoon fed.

    There is no cooling. Statisticians given the data blind (so didn't know what the data was about) categorically state there is no trend lower.

    Do you know statistics better than they?

    Complain about this comment

  • 34. At 1:54pm on 31 Dec 2009, David Blake wrote:

    @31

    Firstly, I note that you didn't address my main point about the troposphere. How odd. The troposphere data IS science. It's not a 'story'. Is it only science when you agree with it? That's the attitude that got us into this hysteria.

    Secondly "So the science of cause and effect is settled is unscientific?" Yes and no. The assumption that CO2 CAUSES temperature rise is wrong, or at the very best just an assumption. CO2 is much more likely to be a product of warming, not a cause. CO2 and temperature have always risen and fallen together. Trust me. Even before Hummers were invented. To observe that and then say it must be CO2 causing the Temp to rise is BAD cause and effect.

    I'll make it simple: Let's draw an analogy between a real greenhouse and the planet.

    Experiment begins: Let me lock you into a greenhouse on a very sunny day. I won't forget about you - honest. You'll get hot. You'll start to pant and possibly foam at the mouth. Get a scientist from the IPCC to measure the CO2 in the greenhouse before and after you roasted in there. What he'll find is that the Temperature rose, and the CO2 rose with it. BUT the CO2 did not cause the temperature rise. It was a product of it, although his conclusion will be the opposite because he will have been listening to that idiot Al Gore.

    You ask should debate include "whether the earth is a flat disc or whether the Sun is the centre of our solar system?" Yep. If it will keep you warm in your yurt. Bit pointless though as these things have been definitively proven to be false. Man made global warming has not.

    Complain about this comment

  • 35. At 1:59pm on 31 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    Burble:
    "Firstly, I note that you didn't address my main point about the troposphere. How odd."

    I did.


    " The troposphere data IS science. It's not a 'story'."

    Uh, no, the data is DATA.

    Science is "what does the data tell us". And your story isn't what the data tells us.

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 36. At 2:04pm on 31 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "I'll make it simple: Let's draw an analogy between a real greenhouse and the planet. "

    OK.

    But then you burble on about something that doesn't disprove AGW.

    Not OK.

    And then jump to Big Lie mode: Man made AGW has not been shown false. It's stood 180 years of testing by people who can think.

    Much longer than special relativity or the modern stellar evolution models also run under computer simulation.

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 37. At 2:08pm on 31 Dec 2009, David Blake wrote:

    @33

    Thanks for at least addressing the point.

    "The theory doesn't say that." Umm, it does. I-R Radiation from the earth is radiated upwards and trapped in the Troposphere. Greenhouse gasses trap the heat there. If it didn't we'd be at -33c and we'd all be dead. For the global warming to be accelerating the troposphere would have to be warming 1.2 times faster than the earth's surface. (That figure's in the report. Read it.)

    But satellite data and weather balloon data have been showing that the troposphere have been rising ~slower~ than the surface. I.e the heating is not due to increased greenhouse gasses.

    Whilst I'm on the subject: the most important greenhouse gas is water vapour - at least 3-4 more important than CO2. When are you chaps going to start taxing clouds?

    "Uh, it's ALWAYS been "anomalies". And where are they talking of "adjusting"? In the CRU emails? Well, try reading the entire email rather than what you've been spoon fed."

    Gee thanks for correcting my spelling. That's really kind of you. Where do they talk of adjusting? Page 13, by the graphs. Have a look. Wait I forget! Silly me. You won't because it's not science if you disagree with it. You'll just follow along, sheep like, behind the God Gore.

    Complain about this comment

  • 38. At 2:24pm on 31 Dec 2009, David Blake wrote:


    Page 1: "Specifically, surface data showed substantial
    global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde
    data showed little or no warming above the surface."

    Page 13: " The right-hand panels show differences
    in trends between the surface and either the troposphere or the lower troposphere, with a positive value indicating
    a stronger warming at the surface."

    Have a look.

    Complain about this comment

  • 39. At 2:32pm on 31 Dec 2009, David Blake wrote:

    Page 13: "Note that, in the tropics, the tropospheric radiosonde data (green and purple filled circles in panels C and D) may have a cooling bias and that it is unlikely that this bias has been completely removed from the adjusted data used here. Note also that the (small) overlap in panel G is deceptive because the models in this overlap area have unrealistically small amounts of warming."

    Ha ha! Note that because the warming is 'unrealistically small' then it must be wrong! Talk about trying to make the facts fit the theory, rather than the theory to the facts.

    Complain about this comment

  • 40. At 2:37pm on 31 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    @38: Neither of which say what you proposed:

    "This is HUGE NEWS. In global warming theory, the greatest warming should occur in the troposphere."

    Have a look yourself.

    "For the global warming to be accelerating the troposphere would have to be warming 1.2 times faster than the earth's surface. (That figure's in the report. Read it.)"

    Read it yourself.

    There's the lower troposphere and upper troposphere. There's the difference in the troposphere near the tropics and the temperate and polar troposphere.

    A difference you ignore. In the hope that someone will be convinced.

    And a warming troposphere is a result of ANY warming method.

    The fingerprint that is AGW's is a cooling stratosphere.

    It's all explained in the IPCC reports and for further detail, look at the referred papers.

    "But satellite data and weather balloon data have been showing that the troposphere have been rising ~slower~ than the surface."

    Uh, no.

    Do you know how satellites measure temperatures? They measure column temperatures. And the measurements from sondes have had too great a variation to see the change that would result from the warming experienced on the surface.

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 41. At 2:42pm on 31 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    Oh dear:

    "Whilst I'm on the subject: the most important greenhouse gas is water vapour - at least 3-4 more important than CO2. When are you chaps going to start taxing clouds?"

    Here's a tip: when you're trying to appear knowledgeable about weather and atmosphere, do NOT mistake the condensed water liquid that constitutes a cloud with water vapour.

    But do you know what happens when you get too many clouds? Rain.

    We don't have CO2 rain on earth.

    Mars manages it.

    Not the earth.

    But what allows more water to be retained in air without it raining out? Heat. Heat that another greenhouse gas (like, oh, say CO2) traps.

    So removing CO2 removes the 3-4 times more effective (it's not anywhere near that, by the way: TOTAL effect is 3-4 times but there's so much more H2O than CO2 you have to REALLY bend your brain around the lie to make it read like that: try not missing out so much next time) at the same time.

    Two birds with one stone.

    PS We produce lots of CO2 that was trapped for millions of years. Given you at least accept significant if lesser role for CO2 as a greenhouse gas AND accept that what we had ~200 years ago gave us 33C of warming, please explain why CO2 has no effect whilst H2O does.

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 42. At 2:46pm on 31 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    and what page 13?

    /professor monckton

    Complain about this comment

  • 43. At 3:29pm on 31 Dec 2009, David Blake wrote:

    Firstly @42 If your report hasn't got a page 13. Then you've evidently lied about reading the report. Search for "Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere - Understanding and Reconciling Differences". Then read it. Then comment.

    @41, oh dear oh dear oh dear. Just Google carbonic acid. I won't embarrass you further on a public forum.

    Both water vapour and CO2 absorb similar wavelengths of IR. They are more or less equal in that ability. I was referring to the quantity of those gasses in the atmosphere. CO2 is far less important (in virtually every sense) that water vapour. The problem is though: taxing it is difficult.

    Whether in vapour or as clouds water is important. You must concede the importance of clouds in controlling the temperature. To deny that is madness.

    "PS We produce lots of CO2 that was trapped for millions of years. Given you at least accept significant if lesser role for CO2 as a greenhouse gas AND accept that what we had ~200 years ago gave us 33C of warming, please explain why CO2 has no effect whilst H2O does."

    OK. I presume 33c is a typo otherwise this is just rubbish. So, in the 1800s it never got above freezing? WTF! To understand why the earth warms up and cools down one has to stop naval gazing and look up. See that big bright thing? It's called the sun. Ever wondered why it's cooler in winter and hotter in summer.... CO2 comes into play as a PRODUCT of rising temperature. As the earth warms every living organism including the sea (by far the most important) releases CO2. (think back to that lovely warm greenhouse I left you in..). CO2 is a PRODUCT of temperature, not the cause.

    Whilst I'm on CO2. You do realise you are mostly made of CO2? (Explains your hot air). CO2 is essential. Without it we would die. Simple. End of. Plants must have it to grow.

    You climate loonies seem to misunderstand about exactly how much CO2 we are arguing about. Air is roughly 78% N 21% O 0.95%Ar, and what's left is gasses including mainly CO2 ~0.05%. (I trust we are agreed). of that 0.05% say 40% (a high estimate) is man made, so 0.02%. This is a miniscule amount. Tiny. It could double, trebble, quintuple, without any significant effect whatsoever.

    Complain about this comment

  • 44. At 1:09pm on 06 Jan 2010, Astrogeek wrote:

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

  • 45. At 1:09pm on 06 Jan 2010, Dennis Fraser wrote:

    Planet saving or face saving... it doesn't matter. The UN Climate Convention needs to draft something fast that everybody can agree on. I believe Earth as our home deserves the utmost attention these days.

    Bashhh

    Complain about this comment

  • 46. At 1:53pm on 06 Jan 2010, aaron wrote:

    "The assumption that CO2 CAUSES temperature rise is wrong, or at the very best just an assumption. CO2 is much more likely to be a product of warming, not a cause. CO2 and temperature have always risen and fallen together. Trust me. Even before Hummers were invented. To observe that and then say it must be CO2 causing the Temp to rise is BAD cause and effect."

    I agree with your statement that CO2 and Temperature are interrelated and that they have been rising and falling together even before man, but carbon dating has found that the CO2 levels haven't been this high since before the last ice age.

    Who knows if man even causes the rise in CO2. It could be a cycle the earth goes through every couple 10,000 years or so.


    [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

    Complain about this comment

  • 47. At 1:55pm on 06 Jan 2010, andrea wrote:

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

  • 48. At 1:56pm on 06 Jan 2010, t shirt druck wrote:

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

  • 49. At 1:59pm on 06 Jan 2010, ljt3759 wrote:

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

  • 50. At 2:03pm on 06 Jan 2010, Ruy Rocha wrote:

    Less words and more action is the deal.

    [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

    Complain about this comment

  • 51. At 2:09pm on 06 Jan 2010, U14284052 wrote:

    'the Royal Family, and all the Royal Families, and the Imperial Family of Japan, head that list of enlightened & committed citizens. Indeed.'

    gotta admit this made me chuckle!

    a cynic is what an idealist calls a realist.

    Complain about this comment

  • 52. At 2:15pm on 06 Jan 2010, t shirt druck wrote:

    <RICHPOST> you are completely right when you say it is a jeans and t-shirt job compared with the detailed couture of earlier today. the acknowledged treaty is a shame to every conscious living human being.<BR /><BR /><a [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]</a> </RICHPOST>

    Complain about this comment

  • 53. At 2:31pm on 06 Jan 2010, popea ionut wrote:

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

  • 54. At 2:37pm on 06 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    "a cynic is what an idealist calls a realist."

    What is a cynic when called such by a realist?

    What is an idealist when called such by someone who thinks they are a realist but are, in fact, cynics?

    Complain about this comment

  • 55. At 3:05pm on 06 Jan 2010, jp manching wrote:

    <RICHPOST>They should jump out of their drawing. Instead of letting people expect more, why not tell the truth or make the right action for it. Imagine what happens to the Earth if it becomes even worse year after year.<BR /><BR /><a[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]</a> </RICHPOST>

    Complain about this comment

  • 56. At 3:32pm on 06 Jan 2010, jane rivera wrote:

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

  • 57. At 3:49pm on 06 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    "Instead of letting people expect more, why not tell the truth or make the right action for it."

    Rpblem is there's money in the actions that result from the truth.

    So many people deny it.

    Hands up anyone who's read the IPCC reports?

    Anyone???

    Complain about this comment

  • 58. At 4:29pm on 06 Jan 2010, Keith wrote:

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

  • 59. At 4:30pm on 06 Jan 2010, Jerryniu wrote:

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

  • 60. At 5:01pm on 06 Jan 2010, newkid wrote:

    Well, who knows it? We can only hear what we must to hear. The true is relative and opignions are different. 8ł

    [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

    Complain about this comment

  • 61. At 5:18pm on 06 Jan 2010, infaredlox4 wrote:

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

  • 62. At 6:22pm on 06 Jan 2010, CeeCee76 wrote:

    <RICHPOST>Thanks for the article. Not quite sure why this this is surprising to anyone... seems like politics at its finest... the goal is obviously good but with image and political concerns the end result is nil. Politicians keep on <a [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]</a> or adapting the goals as they try to appease more groups until nothing is really said. </RICHPOST>

    Complain about this comment

  • 63. At 7:04pm on 06 Jan 2010, LeonGen wrote:

    Not quite sure why this this is surprising to anyone.political concerns the end result is nil. seems like politics at its finest... the goal is obviously good but with image

    Well, who knows it? We can only hear what we must to hear.

    Planet saving or face saving... it doesn't matter [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator] It's all explained in the IPCC reports and for further detail, look at the referred papers.

    "But satellite data and weather balloon data have been showing that the troposphere have been rising ~slower~ than the surface."


    Complain about this comment

  • 64. At 7:19pm on 06 Jan 2010, Medela wrote:

    It's such a shame that nothing of use has come out of this. Isn't it also "face-saving territory"? Hope that this is at least acknowledged so that it can be addressed and REAL change and progress can be made. Again progress is stunted by politics :) There really is no answer except to not give up hope(although very hard and frustrating).

    [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

    Complain about this comment

  • 65. At 7:20pm on 06 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    " CO2 comes into play as a PRODUCT of rising temperature. "

    Please explain the PETM then.


    If you can't, you fail.

    Complain about this comment

  • 66. At 7:46pm on 06 Jan 2010, matt wrote:

    I have read this enlighten article and I was also keeping a updated on the climate change and the summit in Copenhagen and in my honest estimation this was only a ploy for head's of government to talk about finances and for climate change companies to make financial gain off of it. Science is currently proven that this "" climate Change " " is really now just a hoax and the earth goes through systematic changes in which it will start to heat but eventually it will reset's itself back cold. Summit's like these are only meant to save the individuals face and truly not about the environment they are only about new financial ways to do away with the increasing oil price's by alternative means. In the end it comes down to $$ which leads to many of summit globally. I have found some excellent reference at [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

    Complain about this comment

  • 67. At 8:00pm on 06 Jan 2010, MeiMei wrote:

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

  • 68. At 8:01pm on 06 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    No, it doesn't work if you find your spamvertisement links being removed when you're making up pro-AGW speeches to then move to anti-AGW speeches.

    It still gets removed.

    Complain about this comment

  • 69. At 11:56pm on 06 Jan 2010, The IT Juggler wrote:

    You all know that old chestnut - "You can tell a politician is lying when his lips are moving". And sadly, we all know that politicians are all talk and no trousers when it comes to climate change, emission reductions, and remediation of Global Warming.

    I don't know how our politicians sleep at night. It must be incredibly difficult to get comfortable when you have the arm of large industrials and oil magnates up the back of your shirt making them puppet agreement whilst facing the guilt of not actually doing anything concrete.

    Grow up, people. The politicians are our elected representatives. You choose them. CHOOSE BETTER!

    Complain about this comment

  • 70. At 00:10am on 07 Jan 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    The IT Juggler #69.

    "Grow up, people. The politicians are our elected representatives. You choose them. CHOOSE BETTER!"

    it's naive to think that a(ny) person or politician can get to a position of power where they could affect real change unless they're known to be 'safe hands', not 'to rock the boat', know 'which side their bread is buttered on'. get real.

    Complain about this comment

  • 71. At 03:00am on 07 Jan 2010, Sam Carrara wrote:

    I work in the 'green industry' and know/see that green really only means money in peoples wallets. So if any legislation or agreements will hurt companies, then it probably won't pass.

    Let's see if the 'carbon credits' ever appear in the USA for the same reasons.

    Thanks for keeping us updated on this one,
    Sam

    Complain about this comment

  • 72. At 04:36am on 07 Jan 2010, qxygene wrote:

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

  • 73. At 05:22am on 07 Jan 2010, Yamcha Potter wrote:

    I also got exclusive news about it from my friend that Obama said "The United States came to these negotiations with a weak position, and now appears to be attempting to take the rest of the world down to our level. It simply staleness do better."
    is it true?!!
    i am so worried about all these happenings :(

    Complain about this comment

  • 74. At 11:00am on 07 Jan 2010, nanavlad wrote:

    Another load of rubbish from our poiticians,all talk and no action,except to waste money

    Complain about this comment

  • 75. At 12:16pm on 07 Jan 2010, 1Hayley wrote:

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

  • 76. At 12:53pm on 07 Jan 2010, Jeff wrote:

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

  • 77. At 2:41pm on 07 Jan 2010, SEO Guy wrote:

    It's a sad thing to see that rather than setting reasonable, attainable goals, our governments still wish to act as if the ideal solution is being reached.

    This entire occurrence leaves two thoughts in my mind.

    The first is that while non-renewable sources are beginning to quite literally "dry up," politicians have no back-up solution. So far, most efficient "Green" research has been left up to the consumer market. I haven't seen NASA fix this one. (Although, I do have non-stick pans to fry my eggs on thanks to them, I suppose.)

    The second is that there is that the solution is unapproachable. I believe George W. Bush passed a bill in the United States last year about having cars double their fuel efficiency in twenty years. Yet, in twenty years, will there be even that much fossil fuel left for cars?

    The forethought just isn't there with politicians anymore.

    [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

    Complain about this comment

  • 78. At 4:30pm on 07 Jan 2010, hiuuf wrote:

    Wasn't that supposed to be "planet-saving"?

    what u mean by planet-saving ????

    Complain about this comment

  • 79. At 4:44pm on 07 Jan 2010, alex lukinski wrote:

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

  • 80. At 01:05am on 09 Jan 2010, MentalPress wrote:

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

  • 81. At 02:10am on 09 Jan 2010, Oskars Dombrava wrote:

    I think the planet is not worth saving. Why should it be saved? Google rules everything around it. Just released Google Onebox, they control it all.

    Complain about this comment

  • 82. At 9:23pm on 09 Jan 2010, sebastian wrote:

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

  • 83. At 02:09am on 10 Jan 2010, john kershing wrote:

    The real enemy is that in Copenhagen, instead of saving the environment, all they really wanted to do is to actually make money. That 's the truth and the sad fact is that we know it, they know it, everybody knows it and yet, it just keeps on happening.

    Apologies for the rant, but this situation hass been going on like forever and sometimes it is hard not to think of all the thinks that have been going on.

    Complain about this comment

  • 84. At 2:24pm on 11 Jan 2010, Penny Stock Picks wrote:

    I agree with above commenter... in the end, Copenhagen just wants to make money, and it really has been going on forever...

    [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

    Complain about this comment

  • 85. At 7:15pm on 11 Jan 2010, Jgomez wrote:

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

  • 86. At 11:29am on 21 Jan 2010, damon wrote:

    This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain

  • 87. At 3:46pm on 27 Feb 2010, Thomas wrote:

    I think people have come to expect this from the Government. I'm glad I found this article, there's been a ton of talk about it round the web and it's currently one of the most popular stories at Claim Bookmarks even though it is a few months old. Nevertheless, it's something the public shouldn't give up on - the more people that speak up about it, the more likely it is to be heard.

    Complain about this comment

  • 88. At 1:44pm on 09 Mar 2010, Mark Munro wrote:

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

  • 89. At 10:35am on 13 Mar 2010, Lado wrote:

    Re Christine Bleakley's waterskiing across the Channel – making CO2 for charity?

    What example does this latest celebrity stunt set for us ordinary people that the government, the BBC and the society at large is serious about saving energy and minimizing CO2 generation to protect the environment? As a chemical engineer I am appalled that Ms Bleakley and the BBC did not realize that letting herself being dragged across the channel by a powerboat not only costs money (that would be better spent on charity) but it contributes to the man-made pollution of the planet that they all pretend they want to 'save'?

    Much as I like Christine as a co-presenter of the One Show, if she thinks she is still not famous enough and wants to participate in the second-hand charity giving by persuading other people to give (rather than giving her own money), then why does she not swim or 'kite-surf' the channel when no energy is frivolously wasted? The hypocrisy of the whole climate change policy with its green taxes, carbon trading and offsetting is amazing – whilst all unnecessary pollution by power boat racing around UK, Formula 1 racing and endless air shows go on unabated. And now even making CO2 for charity!

    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.