United Nations Climate Change Copenhagen

[Devonian]

Oh, I don't think so, Dev, my old bean.

Whilst it's all fine and dandy to tar everyone with the same brush, I think you'll find others who actually know what they are talking about - it might well be highly specialised, it might will be some oblique study; I don't know - but there are people lurking around that actually know something that is valid and constructive. I do not include myself - the more I look, the less I understand.

But what I do know is that we don't know what is it that you want to argue about?

(I started this as a reposte to the 'all sceptics' implication - frankly, I don't care, anymore, and this post is for reference, only - nice one, managed to unsecure yet another green vote)

That's rather more like the you of old...

Anyway, I asked questions, because, well, they came to mind. You're free to aak questions as well

It seems it's OO for Steven McIntyre to be a successful businessman, likewise Anthony Watts but Dr P.? No, apparently not...

[jethro]

But McIntyre and Watts don't have the backing of governments, nor the buying power of governments and public purse to support their marketing campaign - that's the difference. Dr. P is the public face of the UN, campaigning the world over in support of the IPCC take on climate change; on one hand saying "here's the problem" and with the other saying "here's the solution" conveniently reaping the financial rewards in the process.

At the very least, it smacks of a total lack of impartiality. It's like the Governor of the Bank of England saying "we need more money in circulation" getting the Royal Mint to make some more but neglecting to say up front that he owns the Royal Mint and therefore makes a substantial profit in the process. Would we all believe we need more money in circulation or would we question if he's on a money making scheme?

[Solar Cycles]

But McIntyre and Watts don't have the backing of governments, nor the buying power of governments and public purse to support their marketing campaign - that's the difference. Dr. P is the public face of the UN, campaigning the world over in support of the IPCC take on climate change; on one hand saying "here's the problem" and with the other saying "here's the solution" conveniently reaping the financial rewards in the process.

At the very least, it smacks of a total lack of impartiality. It's like the Governor of the Bank of England saying "we need more money in circulation" getting the Royal Mint to make some more but neglecting to say up front that he owns the Royal Mint and therefore makes a substantial profit in the process. Would we all believe we need more money in circulation or would we question if he's on a money making scheme?

Your wasting your time Jethro! Unfortunately, Dev refuses to see that "just maybe", some within the IPCC could be dishonest, or have ulterior motives! Hey we are all human, and none of us are perfect, apart from the above of course!!

[Gray-Wolf]

Sadly it cuts to the nub does it not? We live in a world governed by a few greedy folk milking a capitalist system that serves them well.

I'm not saying that the folk doing 'very well' out of capitalism established it for their own ends but they found themselves/manoeuvred themselves into a position to profit from it and their personal greed did the rest.

This is true of the fossil fuel bosses and so must be true of some folk within the IPCC (gravy trains are gravy trains after all!).

Were the world not addicted to wealth, or the acquirement of it (and the 'things' ,power/status it brings) ,do you think we'd be having this discussion?

Would we ,in the first world ,be plagued with 'needs' and 'wants' ,and the desperate need to serve them, if it were not for the comp.s that want to sell us more and more 'stuff' (and use more and more resources to do just that?).

To me the logical conclusion is the final collapse of that system as it reaches it's logical conclusion of running short of the things that fuel it be it through peak oil,resource depletion or a climate gone to hell because of our greedy exploitation of limited resources.

Sadly we appear to be the generation to witness such a collapse....through whichever means.

We will watch the third world collapse before we in the first world do ('cause we don't care enough ,at the level of society that matters, to stop it) and then we will follow.

I don't think that the majority who post on here will find it very a very pleasant experience but maybe ,just maybe, those who survive will never make the mistake again (though there will be no breath holding from me as every society seems tainted with 'greed' for thing's ,status,power and a reason to feel 'better' than others).

Of course, though tainted by their own bent bar stewards, the IPCC is still full of folk who care madly for what they 'do' and not what they can get for what they 'do'. I've only known of /read about guys so driven by what they do that they don't really care much for how they look/what they own etc.

Passion drives them not greed.

Bugger, bugger it all.

[Devonian]

But McIntyre and Watts don't have the backing of governments, nor the buying power of governments and public purse to support their marketing campaign - that's the difference.

How do you know? Seriously How do you know? McIntyre and Watts are certainly close to some politicians and political pressure astroturfers. Have they published account of where their financial help comes from. No they have not!...

Dr. P is the public face of the UN, campaigning the world over in support of the IPCC take on climate change; on one hand saying "here's the problem" and with the other saying "here's the solution" conveniently reaping the financial rewards in the process.

I think you should be careful what you allege, because you're alleging financial corruption. You do, presumably, have some proof?

At the very least, it smacks of a total lack of impartiality. It's like the Governor of the Bank of England saying "we need more money in circulation" getting the Royal Mint to make some more but neglecting to say up front that he owns the Royal Mint and therefore makes a substantial profit in the process. Would we all believe we need more money in circulation or would we question if he's on a money making scheme?

Erm, maybe if one simply accepts the allegations. I don't.

Your wasting your time Jethro! Unfortunately, Dev refuses to see that "just maybe", some within the IPCC could be dishonest, or have ulterior motives! Hey we are all human, and none of us are perfect, apart from the above of course!!

I've seen no proof that either McIntyre, Watts or Pachuri are corrupt, financially or otherwise. OK?

Edited December 21, 2009 by Devonian

[Solar Cycles]

How do you know? Seriously How do you know? McIntyre and Watts are certainly close to some politicians and political pressure astroturfers. Have they published account of where their financial help comes from. No they have not!...

I think you should be careful what you allege, because you're alleging financial corruption. You do, presumably, have some proof?

Erm, maybe if one simply accepts the allegations. I don't.

I've seen no proof that either McIntyre, Watts or Pachuri are corrupt, financially or otherwise. OK?

I meant some of those within the IPCC Dev!!

[laserguy]

Bugger, bugger it all.

That my friend is a very,very good idea. I'm off for a pint and a 'smoke' .

[jethro]

To be fair Dev, if McIntyre or Watts or any other sceptic blog was in the pay of oil barons, politicians etc, we'd all have heard about it a long time ago.

I'm not alleging anything, I'm stating facts. Dr. P is the public face of the UN publicly campaigning against climate change based upon the findings of the IPCC. Al Gore campaigns tirelessly against climate change, he's even got a Nobel Prize for goodness sakes - he's also got large stakes in Carbon Trading companies.

Can't remember the name of the guy who previously was in the UN campaigning against climate change (may even have been head but can't remember) he also has large stakes in Carbon Trading companies and he was the one who first came up with the idea.

[Roger J Smith]

Well from what I hear, the Germans are really angry at the world, and plan to unleash some sort of lightning war, it all seems a bit retro to me.

Perhaps the world leaders could just declare victory over the weather, it seems to me that they have already succeeded in halting global warming.

Well done, but that's about all we need for now, thanks.

Edited December 22, 2009 by Roger J Smith

[Devonian]

To be fair Dev, if McIntyre or Watts or any other sceptic blog was in the pay of oil barons, politicians etc, we'd all have heard about it a long time ago.

Don't think so, they're VERY secretive about that kind of thing. After all, we've not seen their emails so how can you judge*? Btw, Watts is a Republican Party activist...

*if you think reading peoples private correspondences helps you judge?

Edited December 22, 2009 by Devonian

[jethro]

We haven't seen emails from Dr. P and Al Gore either - can't see the connection???

We're talking business interests here, not whether or not AGW is real, data manipulation and leaked emails. Carbon Trading is BIG business and very profitable.

[Devonian]

We haven't seen emails from Dr. P and Al Gore either - can't see the connection???

We're talking business interests here, not whether or not AGW is real, data manipulation and leaked emails. Carbon Trading is BIG business and very profitable.

Which brings us back to the question of why it is only card carrying sceptics are allowed to be successful businessmen*?

*I don't accept the allegation made of Dr P.

[jethro]

Which brings us back to the question of why it is only card carrying sceptics are allowed to be successful businessmen*?

*I don't accept the allegation made of Dr P.

You're misinterpreting - see my first response to this.

Are you saying Dr. P has NO business interests/links to carbon trading and associated industries?

[Devonian]

You're misinterpreting - see my first response to this.

Are you saying Dr. P has NO business interests/links to carbon trading and associated industries?

I don't trust Christopher Booker at all, so I wouldn't go by that Telegraph article. But, I think Dr P does indeed have business interest - I've not seen evidence of any corruption though. So what? Again if it's OK for Watts or McIntyre or Monckton why not Dr P.?

Besides, does any of this change the science? No it doesn't.

Edited December 22, 2009 by Devonian

[jethro]

I don't trust Christopher Booker at all, so I wouldn't go by that Telegraph article. But, I think Dr P does indeed have business interest - I've not seen evidence of any corruption though. So what? Again if it's OK for Watts or McIntyre or Monckton why not Dr P.?

Besides, does any of this change the science? No it doesn't.

[/quot

So we agree Dr. P does have business interests here.

I'm not sure anyone has made any allegation of corruption, just a possible conflict of interest - surely that's a valid question?

Don't see how Watts and McIntyre feature here but as I said, please see my first response.

And no one has mentioned the validity of the science, again, we're talking business interests and possible conflict of interest.

[Devonian]

I don't trust Christopher Booker at all, so I wouldn't go by that Telegraph article. But, I think Dr P does indeed have business interest - I've not seen evidence of any corruption though. So what? Again if it's OK for Watts or McIntyre or Monckton why not Dr P.?

Besides, does any of this change the science? No it doesn't.

So we agree Dr. P does have business interests here.

I'm not sure anyone has made any allegation of corruption, just a possible conflict of interest - surely that's a valid question?

Don't see how Watts and McIntyre feature here but as I said, please see my first response.

And no one has mentioned the validity of the science, again, we're talking business interests and possible conflict of interest.

So the fact that Watts is Republican Party activist isn't a conflict of interest? Or that McIntyre has 'mining' interests isn't a conflict of interest either? But that Dr P. has business interests is? How?

And that both Watts and McIntyre seem to be able to run extremely active blogs financed by 'tip jars' yet we never see their accounts. Isn't that odd?

Edited December 22, 2009 by Devonian

[jethro]

There's a lot of things in life which are odd Dev, IMO the only thing which is as pure as the driven snow is well, driven snow.

I see a conflict of interest with Dr. P and Al Gore, to me the likes of Watts and McIntyre are of less interest. That's not a defence of them, it's more a perspective of "they're just bloggers" of little importance and influence; I'd bet if you stopped and asked 100 joe public who they are, very few would know, a much higher percentage would know who Dr. P and Al Gore are.

Watts and McIntyre have very limited power, they do not have the world as their stage as the leaders of nations converge to discuss these issues.

Would we question the Governor of the Bank of England saying "we need more money in circulation" if he owned The Royal Mint and stood to make a profit? Of course we would, why should climate change be isolated from such questioning?

[Devonian]

There's a lot of things in life which are odd Dev, IMO the only thing which is as pure as the driven snow is well, driven snow.

I see a conflict of interest with Dr. P and Al Gore, to me the likes of Watts and McIntyre are of less interest. That's not a defence of them, it's more a perspective of "they're just bloggers" of little importance and influence; I'd bet if you stopped and asked 100 joe public who they are, very few would know, a much higher percentage would know who Dr. P and Al Gore are.

Watts and McIntyre have very limited power, they do not have the world as their stage as the leaders of nations converge to discuss these issues.

Would we question the Governor of the Bank of England saying "we need more money in circulation" if he owned The Royal Mint and stood to make a profit? Of course we would, why should climate change be isolated from such questioning?

Sorry, fundamental disagreement coming up :unsure:

Jethro, the facts are that public opinion in the US has turned markedly sceptical and that is in significant part due to the activities of people like Watts and McIntyre and their friends at Fox News and other right wing media outlets.

Watts and McIntyre are influential. Not on the US Govt but certainly on public opinion. For that reason I think we should treat them with deep suspicion. They're turning the US public away from science to pseudo science - something that should concern all of us. It's them The Telegraph should investigate. I have to wonder why it hasn't...

[jethro]

I'm sorry but the US populace is small fry when compared to the leaders of world governments.

I think the likes of Watts et al make a lot of noise and very little else.

Would you trust the Governor of The Bank of England if he stood to make a profit or would you want answers to questions? Should we be allowed to question or should we accept on faith? Don't forget we're talking billions of pounds here and the future of nations.

Putting it in different terms, we're all used to seeing raffles, competitions in various guises, run locally, through magazines etc - the small print invariably disbars employees from participating, to ensure no foul play is possible or cries of 'foul play' can be voiced. If such transparency and fairness is deemed important enough to apply it to winning a free subscription or a pair of socks, shouldn't it also apply to world wide government decisions?

[Devonian]

I'm sorry but the US populace is small fry when compared to the leaders of world governments.

I think the likes of Watts et al make a lot of noise and very little else.

Well, we'll just have to disagree on that. So, why is it US public opinion has gone more sceptical?

Would you trust the Governor of The Bank of England if he stood to make a profit or would you want answers to questions? Should we be allowed to question or should we accept on faith? Don't forget we're talking billions of pounds here and the future of nations.

I expect the GOTBOE is very, very well paid.

Putting it in different terms, we're all used to seeing raffles, competitions in various guises, run locally, through magazines etc - the small print invariably disbars employees from participating, to ensure no foul play is possible or cries of 'foul play' can be voiced. If such transparency and fairness is deemed important enough to apply it to winning a free subscription or a pair of socks, shouldn't it also apply to world wide government decisions?

Yes, but then, I don't accept the allegations from Booker.

Besides, as I keep saying, alleged hypocrisy doesn't change science.

[Dartmoor_Matt]

Perhaps they went sceptical because they have a brain cell thats functioning?

Anyway. I feel the problem is that despite there being sceptics, surely if all the politicians and scientists were 'sold' on the idea of man made climate change an agreement would of been done in Copenhagen? I think the fact there isn't speaks volumes for the lack of agreement, despite the ramblings of Gordon Brown.

[jethro]

Well, we'll just have to disagree on that. So, why is it US public opinion has gone more sceptical?

I expect the GOTBOE is very, very well paid.

Yes, but then, I don't accept the allegations from Booker.

Besides, as I keep saying, alleged hypocrisy doesn't change science.

So are you saying the GOTBOE is well enough paid to not want to seek a profit by other means? I expect he is well paid but can't see what that would have to do with it. Please could you answer the question I posed re the whimsical ownership of The Royal Mint.

But you have accepted that Dr. P has business interests in carbon trading.

Hypocrisy isn't the issue here - conflict of interest is. It's absolutely routine for conflicts of interest to be investigated in the business world, why should climate change and carbon trading be any different?

[Devonian]

So are you saying the GOTBOE is well enough paid to not want to seek a profit by other means? I expect he is well paid but can't see what that would have to do with it. Please could you answer the question I posed re the whimsical ownership of The Royal Mint.

I wouldn't approve of corruption.

But you have accepted that Dr. P has business interests in carbon trading.

Hypocrisy isn't the issue here - conflict of interest is. It's absolutely routine for conflicts of interest to be investigated in the business world, why should climate change and carbon trading be any different?

OK, then lets stop quoting Watts and McIntyre because they both (as I've said) have clear conflicts of interest as well. Lets have some consistency, if we're going to try and undermine the IPCC science by attacks on it's top people then it's fair game to do it with the top sceptics. Btw, I'd, as ever, much rather we talked about what's in the IPCC reports than it's authors (and likewise WUWT/CA).

Edited December 22, 2009 by Devonian

[jethro]

Will you please stop interpreting my posts as attacking people, I didn't, never have nor would I.

I may be misinterpreting your tone here, and apologies if I have but you seem very combative; seeking clarification upon conflicts of interest is perfectly legitimate and accepted practise the world over. I see no justifiable reason why anyone should be above this.

As for talking about the content of the IPCC reports, we've all done that to death, newer research is far more interesting IMO.

[Devonian]

Will you please stop interpreting my posts as attacking people, I didn't, never have nor would I.

I do think if (if) people say 'X would be guilty of Y if such and such is true' then it's fine and dandy for others so to do . I also think you have to understand that if people who some respect (Dr P.) are attacked by people like Booker they'll be defended by said people - and of course vice versa.

I may be misinterpreting your tone here, and apologies if I have but you seem very combative; seeking clarification upon conflicts of interest is perfectly legitimate and accepted practise the world over. I see no justifiable reason why anyone should be above this.

That is my position. No one above it. Though, again, I'd rather discuss what people say than the people themselves.

As for talking about the content of the IPCC reports, we've all done that to death, newer research is far more interesting IMO.

Probably so, which makes me wonder why Dr P. gets attacked (by Booker in the Telegraph, not you) in the way he was? I mean the IPCC is either relevant or it isn't.