Climate Cat out of the Bag? Potentially dynamite revelations
Discussion
turbobloke said:
s.m.h. said:
Interesting snippet from another US site about China
Yes, wasn't the announcement that China will reduce 'carbon intensity' by 40 to 45% by 2020 - that means China's emissions will still rise. Beforeitsnews said:
At the same time, Bloomberg has reported that the Chinese have also pledged to set numerical targets for greenhouse gas emissions through 2020.
China’s cabinet yesterday said it will cut output of carbon dioxide per unit of gross domestic product by between 40 percent and 45 percent from 2005. A day earlier, the U.S. said it will propose a direct CO2 reduction in the same period of about 17 percent, provided that lines up with a new domestic climate law.
Cutting output of CO2 per unit of GDP for the Chinese means they will not be required to cut any outputs, as long as their economy grows near the current rate of 8% for the next ten years, their output could actually increase. This is a very nice way to say "no thanks", while still agreeing with your host. The only way to make the numbers work will be to ship even more jobs over to China, who will still be able to increase their CO2 output and their economy, while countries like the U.S. will have to shut down entire swaths of its economy to comply.
China’s cabinet yesterday said it will cut output of carbon dioxide per unit of gross domestic product by between 40 percent and 45 percent from 2005. A day earlier, the U.S. said it will propose a direct CO2 reduction in the same period of about 17 percent, provided that lines up with a new domestic climate law.
Cutting output of CO2 per unit of GDP for the Chinese means they will not be required to cut any outputs, as long as their economy grows near the current rate of 8% for the next ten years, their output could actually increase. This is a very nice way to say "no thanks", while still agreeing with your host. The only way to make the numbers work will be to ship even more jobs over to China, who will still be able to increase their CO2 output and their economy, while countries like the U.S. will have to shut down entire swaths of its economy to comply.
If the UK ceased to exist or if the economy was reduced to zero, mere growth in the Chinese economy would offset the puny reduction in global emisssions resulting from the UK's demise in about 2 years.
If every UK licence holder drove 5 miles less each week for a year, growth in the Chinese economy would make up the puny emissions deficit in about 15 minutes.
Drive 5 miles less - together we can make a difference
reduced wear on the roads (less cost to the government)
less traffic jams(less cost to the government due to reduced road improvement schemes)
And it will be easier for our MPs to get to the airport to Jet off all over the world to important
climate change conferences/jolly's.
PALM! It's facePALM not faceplant you tard. TimJMS said:
Brigstocke = utter 
. what has happened to him? He used to be funny, now he is just a right on political commentator.
Davis's most perspicacious comment for me was along the lines of if Government believes that more extreme weather events are going to become the norm, then why the fucque aren't more resources being directed at flood defences? Why is it that policy is actually directed at allowing the entire English drainage network, built up and maintained over millennia, to block solid? It smacks of moral bankruptcy to me.
As for the Portillo cock - loving Abbott on the Andrew Neil show, how is it possible for an otherwise intelligent woman to come out with the same comment as that uttered by an utter pleb on QT earlier : "but, but how can you say that Michael, just look at the floods in Cockermouth..." credit to Portillo though. He did a double faceplant with despair at the utter fatuity of the comment, and was virtually lost for words so shocked was he by Abbott's stupidity. He'll be having words later I'm sure back at their pied-à-terre.
Its going to take time, (and a shed load more faceplanting) to overcome the inertia caused by this level of mass brainwashing.
If ever there was a case of 'the token ethnic', Abbott is it, she is so dense light bends around her. Another shining example of how the BBC has changed from the world leading broadcasting company it once was to the joke it has now become. . what has happened to him? He used to be funny, now he is just a right on political commentator.Davis's most perspicacious comment for me was along the lines of if Government believes that more extreme weather events are going to become the norm, then why the fucque aren't more resources being directed at flood defences? Why is it that policy is actually directed at allowing the entire English drainage network, built up and maintained over millennia, to block solid? It smacks of moral bankruptcy to me.
As for the Portillo cock - loving Abbott on the Andrew Neil show, how is it possible for an otherwise intelligent woman to come out with the same comment as that uttered by an utter pleb on QT earlier : "but, but how can you say that Michael, just look at the floods in Cockermouth..." credit to Portillo though. He did a double faceplant with despair at the utter fatuity of the comment, and was virtually lost for words so shocked was he by Abbott's stupidity. He'll be having words later I'm sure back at their pied-à-terre.
Its going to take time, (and a shed load more faceplanting) to overcome the inertia caused by this level of mass brainwashing.
with thanks to 'the thick of it'
jshell said:
The main laugh was some stupid woman being interviewed in a shopping mall saying the 'polar bears were in trouble.'.....
Thats just it though they have found the perfect storm.every time it rains, every shot of an ice berg, every sad looking floofy woofy animal works as proof in teh heads of retards and they just cannot be told otherwise.
every time a Polar bear is mentioned for whatever reason my Mrs says " oh the poor Polar bears"
B Oeuf said:
If ever there was a case of 'the token ethnic', Abbott is it, she is so dense light bends around her. Another shining example of how the BBC has changed from the world leading broadcasting company it once was to the joke it has now become.
But a staunch socialist, what with sending her offspring to a private school, just like all the workers do comrade....I am frankly appalled at the state of the BBC. Let's hope the US Senate seeks to extradite some BBC people !!
This http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8370282.stm is now the second result on a search for BBC news.
...Mole... said:
This http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8370282.stm is now the second result on a search for BBC news.
The really sad part about this is people from all over the world will be login on to the BBC to find out about this (and expecting an in depth honest report ) and all they will get is someone broke into my computer and we will have to be more careful in the future what we say in E mails.
It really is time for a big change at the BBC or is it the GBC Government broadcasting Corporation.
from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8381317.stm posted earlier
So which is it, good agreement which means despite what we have read the CRU data/models all is fine?
Or
Divergence among the models (should that be hide the lack of agreement
) which means there is no validation of the CRU models/data.
Can't have it both ways chaps.
Professor Mann said:
But a few of the models do recreate this dynamic "La Nina effect", and suggest that that when you heat the Earth's surface, the climate system tries to offset and cool.
"If the response of the Earth in the past is analogous to the temperature increase caused by greenhouse gases... it could lend credence to this counterintuitive notion of a La Nina response to global warming," said Professor Mann.
Is this setting the stage that models can indeed predict cooling, and if we are actually entering a cooling phase they can say "Told you the models were right!""If the response of the Earth in the past is analogous to the temperature increase caused by greenhouse gases... it could lend credence to this counterintuitive notion of a La Nina response to global warming," said Professor Mann.
But then he said:
But, he added, that the Earth's response to greenhouse-gas-induced global warming might be more complex than "natural" warming.
Just in case it doesn't - nice bit of arse covering there I see.and then he said:
"There is still a fair amount of divergence among the various models..."
But I thought there was good agreement across the models? At least that is what has been claimed on here and elsewhere.So which is it, good agreement which means despite what we have read the CRU data/models all is fine?
Or
Divergence among the models (should that be hide the lack of agreement
) which means there is no validation of the CRU models/data. Can't have it both ways chaps.
I've mentioned this before on these climate threads....but there are 3 points about this whole debacle.
(1) Drive towards more efficient use of energy.
This really has nothing to do with climate change but is basically an intelligent use of energy and a money saver in general. No engineer or end user would want to design/buy a lower efficient machine that uses more energy just for the sake of it for example.
(2) The whole MMGW believer researchers who are manipulating data and computer models and then submitting 'results' to government advisors who then inform government who make up green taxes and go on crusades to 'SAVE the PLANET'. (This section also includes the general mis-use of science in convicing other 'believers' and their mind-set).
(3) The whole facade of the future predictions made by governments and vested interest individuals/scientists who are predicting the 'MILLIONS will DIE' scenarios in various places on the globe. And how all this will somehow suddenly happen faster than man can cope with.
Now number(2) would have no reasons for taxation (or any action, as the future would naturally prove the science to be wrong/manipulated) if it were not for the fools that take part in number(3).
So Al Gore (and other vested interest parties) set off on their mission with number(3) so that number(2) can be 'justified' by governments.
Why are the governments around the world so eager to raise so much funds?
Well, one reason maybe to fund aid for the problem of the out-of-control population growth, protection from future recessions, reduce the amount of money that individuals have and work towards a more socialist/communist global environment so that the individual has less 'power' (as power to the individual is usually the biggest threat to any government)....basically it could be any number of reasons....only the secret little playgroup meeting that the G8,G20 leader have will know the answer.
Whatever the reason, myself like MANY others hate being lied to and deceived under the name of science in government's quests to raise funds through compulsary taxation.
(1) Drive towards more efficient use of energy.
This really has nothing to do with climate change but is basically an intelligent use of energy and a money saver in general. No engineer or end user would want to design/buy a lower efficient machine that uses more energy just for the sake of it for example.
(2) The whole MMGW believer researchers who are manipulating data and computer models and then submitting 'results' to government advisors who then inform government who make up green taxes and go on crusades to 'SAVE the PLANET'. (This section also includes the general mis-use of science in convicing other 'believers' and their mind-set).
(3) The whole facade of the future predictions made by governments and vested interest individuals/scientists who are predicting the 'MILLIONS will DIE' scenarios in various places on the globe. And how all this will somehow suddenly happen faster than man can cope with.
Now number(2) would have no reasons for taxation (or any action, as the future would naturally prove the science to be wrong/manipulated) if it were not for the fools that take part in number(3).
So Al Gore (and other vested interest parties) set off on their mission with number(3) so that number(2) can be 'justified' by governments.
Why are the governments around the world so eager to raise so much funds?
Well, one reason maybe to fund aid for the problem of the out-of-control population growth, protection from future recessions, reduce the amount of money that individuals have and work towards a more socialist/communist global environment so that the individual has less 'power' (as power to the individual is usually the biggest threat to any government)....basically it could be any number of reasons....only the secret little playgroup meeting that the G8,G20 leader have will know the answer.
Whatever the reason, myself like MANY others hate being lied to and deceived under the name of science in government's quests to raise funds through compulsary taxation.
Jasandjules said:
B Oeuf said:
If ever there was a case of 'the token ethnic', Abbott is it, she is so dense light bends around her. Another shining example of how the BBC has changed from the world leading broadcasting company it once was to the joke it has now become.
But a staunch socialist, what with sending her offspring to a private school, just like all the workers do comrade....I am frankly appalled at the state of the BBC. Let's hope the US Senate seeks to extradite some BBC people !!
and to go O/T for a nanosecond, we need a thorough overhaul in the UK, we are bereft of scruples, morals and cahonas. I just don't see anything other than more of the same from the CMD, Brown, Cleggkerplunk said:
BJWoods said:
give it up ludo...
What is your response to the nz, we fixed the data, article.
In th uk the media will try tobury this..
But, America has woken up to this. the genie is out...
B
Read more about how the evil experts manipulate data while the noble sceptics appreciate the scientific purity of raw data here:What is your response to the nz, we fixed the data, article.
In th uk the media will try tobury this..
But, America has woken up to this. the genie is out...
B
http://hot-topic.co.nz/nz-sceptics-lie-about-temp-...
"BBC's paleo-news site finally runs a real scoop story on Climategate's Michael Mann"
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100...
"No apologies for revisiting Climategate, for this is the exposé of the can of worms that is the AGW mindset that just keeps giving. Now, what would you say if I were to tell you that the BBC News website is running a story on Professor Michael Mann, of Pennsylvania State University, one of the boys in Phil Jones’s gang hut at CRU East Anglia? “B****r me!” you would probably respond. “Don’t tell me the BBC has finally caught up with Climategate.”
Relax. I’m not telling you that; and it hasn’t. Instead, the BBC “News” site is running a story based on an article in Science magazine. Under the headline “Past climate anomalies explained,” it begins: “Unusually warm and cold periods in Earth’s pre-industrial climate history are linked to how the oceans responded to temperature changes, say scientists.” In this instance, “scientists” turns out to mean primarily Michael Mann, who is generously quoted.
“We reconstructed patterns of [the Earth’s] surface temperatures during those two intervals,” he explains, the two intervals being the “little ice age” and “medieval warm period”. There is much chatter about ice cores, tree rings and coral. There is no reference to the fact that this man is involved, very prominently, in the controversy surrounding the CRU at East Anglia, or to his interesting semantic convolutions in redefining the word “trick”.
Still less is there any acknowledgement that, at the moment, commentators in the United States, in online video reports, are reading increasing chunks of the CRU computer code and bursting into laughter at the incredible manipulations they reveal as, hour by hour, the Climategate scandal unravels. Issues relating to tree rings, not to mention Michael Mann, are central to that deconstruction of what is now being accepted, even by AGW supporters, as the junk science practised at the CRU.
Instead, the BBC – on a website devoted to “News” – thinks it more important to retail material from an article in a scientific journal, as if nothing had happened. Mann is the paleo-climate scientist who helped create the notorious “hockey stick graph” which was the first major element of the man-made global warming scam to be discredited.
Yet the paleo-news outlet that is the BBC pursues business as usual. Turmoil in Australian and New Zealand politics, with climate research in New Zealand now being similarly exposed, Congressional investigations of Climategate in the United States – all that has passed by the BBC. The big news about Michael Mann is his investigations into ocean coral. (“Apart from that, Mrs Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?”)
Hot tip: better tune in promptly to the BBC News tonight, or you may miss the death of Queen Anne."
What a joke!
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100...
"No apologies for revisiting Climategate, for this is the exposé of the can of worms that is the AGW mindset that just keeps giving. Now, what would you say if I were to tell you that the BBC News website is running a story on Professor Michael Mann, of Pennsylvania State University, one of the boys in Phil Jones’s gang hut at CRU East Anglia? “B****r me!” you would probably respond. “Don’t tell me the BBC has finally caught up with Climategate.”
Relax. I’m not telling you that; and it hasn’t. Instead, the BBC “News” site is running a story based on an article in Science magazine. Under the headline “Past climate anomalies explained,” it begins: “Unusually warm and cold periods in Earth’s pre-industrial climate history are linked to how the oceans responded to temperature changes, say scientists.” In this instance, “scientists” turns out to mean primarily Michael Mann, who is generously quoted.
“We reconstructed patterns of [the Earth’s] surface temperatures during those two intervals,” he explains, the two intervals being the “little ice age” and “medieval warm period”. There is much chatter about ice cores, tree rings and coral. There is no reference to the fact that this man is involved, very prominently, in the controversy surrounding the CRU at East Anglia, or to his interesting semantic convolutions in redefining the word “trick”.
Still less is there any acknowledgement that, at the moment, commentators in the United States, in online video reports, are reading increasing chunks of the CRU computer code and bursting into laughter at the incredible manipulations they reveal as, hour by hour, the Climategate scandal unravels. Issues relating to tree rings, not to mention Michael Mann, are central to that deconstruction of what is now being accepted, even by AGW supporters, as the junk science practised at the CRU.
Instead, the BBC – on a website devoted to “News” – thinks it more important to retail material from an article in a scientific journal, as if nothing had happened. Mann is the paleo-climate scientist who helped create the notorious “hockey stick graph” which was the first major element of the man-made global warming scam to be discredited.
Yet the paleo-news outlet that is the BBC pursues business as usual. Turmoil in Australian and New Zealand politics, with climate research in New Zealand now being similarly exposed, Congressional investigations of Climategate in the United States – all that has passed by the BBC. The big news about Michael Mann is his investigations into ocean coral. (“Apart from that, Mrs Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?”)
Hot tip: better tune in promptly to the BBC News tonight, or you may miss the death of Queen Anne."
What a joke!
F i F said:
If this has already been said in this fast moving thread I apologise, but you know this thing to my mind has many characteristics aligned with the UK MP expenses malarkey.
Reminds me more of the "dodgy dossier" making the case for war in Iraq - a closed community makes a decision on what it thinks is the right thing to do, and then sets about creating a convincing case to ensure that decision makers come to the "right" conclusion. This is why scientists must not be activists or politicians; like the old joke about using statistics as a drunk uses a lamppost - for support rather than illumination - having an agenda corrupts the science.otolith said:
F i F said:
If this has already been said in this fast moving thread I apologise, but you know this thing to my mind has many characteristics aligned with the UK MP expenses malarkey.
Reminds me more of the "dodgy dossier" making the case for war in Iraq - a closed community makes a decision on what it thinks is the right thing to do, and then sets about creating a convincing case to ensure that decision makers come to the "right" conclusion. This is why scientists must not be activists or politicians; like the old joke about using statistics as a drunk uses a lamppost - for support rather than illumination - having an agenda corrupts the science.There is wholly too much career ending egg about to land on so many tax hungry politician's and funding hungry academics faces for them to even acknowledge this side of the debate has any credibility.
Regretably, while there is still money to be made, academic status to be gained and political face to be saved, anyone contesting AGW will continue to be positioned in the same light as your average facist, holocasut denying, fur wearing, animal testing, fox buggering, kiddy fidler by this creaking turd of a Gov't
So much money and status in the balance...the truth doesn't stand a chance.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff