United Nations Climate Change Copenhagen

[laserguy]

Let's cut out the swipes and bickering shall we?

There'll be more than enough of that going around at Copenhagen. Why can't we join in the fun ?

[Gray-Wolf]

I posted this earlier, but I think it got trampled!

Anyway, I think it speaks volumes that AGW's most ardent and vocal "supporter" has just decided that he can't attend Copenhagen after all.

I really do think it will be a shambles, what with the e-mails, countries threatening to walk out and now big Al turning his back on it. It just gets juicier by the day!

Wouldn't you be better served in figuring why the tree ring records needed to be substituted for thermometer records in the leaked/robbed E-Mails?

Doesn't it have reams of sceptical press in it? (isn't the 'hockey stick' stuff connected to tree rings?).

What is it that made the growth rings 'non-indicative', of the climate on the ground in the sixties,that you'd want to 'swap them' out for 'real' measured temps ???

could our 'globally cooled' period be the only reason that the 'proxy' doesn't 'play ball' (and the UEA are so flustered with the furor that they haven't realised that the 'tree rings' didn't play ball because of emissions in the first place........) sadly it'll be after Cop. meeting that we figure that it was 'Us' that did dun it.......

[Solar Cycles]

Yes, well that was the idea, surely...

Warmest November in the satellite record? Are you going to tell us that?

Warmest November, coldest November. It really makes no difference, it's one month of data Dev. I'm sure if it had been the coldest, you wouldn't be broadcasting it! Still that's the usual wa@@@@@ tatic, all smokescreen and mirrors!

Edited December 5, 2009 by Solar Cycles

[Gray-Wolf]

I see the meeting now has an 'Anthem'

Oh, what'll you do now, my blue-eyed son?

Oh, what'll you do now, my darling young one?

Pete T. will love it!

Cheers Bob!

[masheeuk]

Just read Met office to release all the data. This should now draw a line under things for a while I would have thought as you cannot do more than this.

Edited December 5, 2009 by masheeuk

[stewfox]

12 articles on 'Global warming the truth', in the Spectator December 5th issue. Mandatory reading I would suggest.

1)) You can see the president of the Maldives having a cabinet meeting under water in scuba gear

or read about a sea level specialist who has been involved in that industry for 40yrs and what his take on the Maldives and sea level rise is,after undertaking 6 different field postions in the Maldives and looking back over the last 300 years.

1) Listen to AL gore and Malaria

or a scientist who's specialism is epidemoilogy and mosquitoes. As they say Malaria was ramant in the middle marshes of Essex in the last litlte ice age, so Gores comments are funny

1) Spend $800 billion over the next 90 years soley on mitigting carbon emissions which would rain in temperatures by 0.1c and at the same time Tax the problem by $40 trillion a year.

or spend 0.2% of GDP today in developing alternative energy

etc etc

etc etc

Read these 12 articles and report back

, if you really want to explore investment theory I suggest you open a thread in serious discussion - it's not a climate issue.

How wrong that comment is , thats the problem the climate issue is a political/economic issue. At the moment it has very little to do with facts and the weather.

Every logger in South America wants a bit of the climate issue

Edited December 5, 2009 by stewfox

[Methuselah]

I see the meeting now has an 'Anthem'

Oh, what'll you do now, my blue-eyed son?

Oh, what'll you do now, my darling young one?

Pete T. will love it!

Cheers Bob!

Eeeeeeeee Haaa! :lol:

[Thundery wintry showers]

1) Spend $800 billion over the next 90 years soley on mitigting carbon emissions which would rain in temperatures by 0.1c and at the same time Tax the problem by $40 trillion a year.

or spend 0.2% of GDP today in developing alternative energy

Er, but developing alternative energy would help to mitigate carbon emissions.

I'm not the greatest fan of policies that focus only on one aspect of the problem (carbon emissions) and rely upon authoritarian measures, but the above post is worded in a rather condescending way.

Edited December 5, 2009 by Thundery wintry showers

[laserguy]

.......thats the problem the climate issue is a political/economic issue. At the moment it has very little nothing to do with facts and the weather.

As I've been saying all along,as the more astute amongst you will have observed. Good to see it's all coming out now. Those who are a little slow on the uptake should around now be getting that knot in the stomach you would feel if you sent off a wedge of dosh to a mail-order company that's gone bust,and there's no chance of getting your money back.

[Thundery wintry showers]

But where is the evidence for the above, other than "because I said so"?

There's plenty of evidence for politics and economics having clouded the science aspects of the climate change issue (I'm pretty certain that things are not as clear cut as the politicians tell us), but that doesn't, in itself, invalidate the science.

Plus, if the evidence surrounding AGW is not clear cut, that's not a line of evidence suggesting that we can reasonably jump to the conclusion that it doesn't exist. That equates to the nonsensical statement "uncertainty implies certainty".

Edited December 5, 2009 by Thundery wintry showers

[Solar Cycles]

Just watched that stuttering clown Gordon Broon, talking as if he knew anything about climate science!

According to him I'm a flat earther, unfortunately I can't state what I think about him, due the fear of being banned!

[rob48]

Looks like Big Al has more pressing engagements:

http://www.larouchepac.com/node/12520

[Devonian]

Looks like Big Al has more pressing engagements:

http://www.larouchepac.com/node/12520

No that sewer (what the gutter flows into) nonsense again It's a utterly disgraceful article full of ad hom and paranoia "an obese fascist...Fat Albert's flight of fear...as the fascists who brought you the near-destruction of the United States and an onrushing global Dark Age, are no longer walking the streets, smug in the belief that they are literally getting away with murder" If that's what you really want, you really believe, you're lost. LaRouch? Sheeshh.

Edited December 5, 2009 by Devonian

[Methuselah]

Aye, I saw that load of drivel the other day...

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.youtube.c...feature=related

Just a little link to Bob's theme to our climate shindig........1962 eh?

Brolleys up deniers an' all........

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8396803.stm

Edited December 5, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[Solar Cycles]

http://www.youtube.c...feature=related

Just a little link to Bob's theme to our climate shindig........1962 eh?

Brollies up deniers an' all........

http://news.bbc.co.u...cas/8396803.stm

At least the IPCC have good taste in music. Personally I would have thought Atmosphere, by Joy Division would have been a better choice. As in you could cut with a knife, with all the shenanigans that have been going on!

Edited December 5, 2009 by Solar Cycles

[Gray-Wolf]

At least the IPCC have good taste in music. Personally I would have thought Atmosphere, by Joy Division would have been a better choice. As in you could cut with a knife, with all the shenanigans that have been going on!

Not 'she's lost control again' then?

[Solar Cycles]

Not 'she's lost control again' then?

[stewfox]

Er, but developing alternative energy would help to mitigate carbon emissions.

I'm not the greatest fan of policies that focus only on one aspect of the problem (carbon emissions) and rely upon authoritarian measures, but the above post is worded in a rather condescending way.

Then send money on finding alternative energy rather then trillions on something thats unproven

That was the point of the article and clearly put better then what I could like what . 12 Articiles in fact

[Thundery wintry showers]

Far, far too black and white I'm afraid. Spending money on alternative energy would come under the bracket of "spending money on reducing CO2 emissions", so should it be rejected because it comes under the bracket of "spending trillions on something that is unproven"?

Also, there's a question over what it is that's supposed to be "unproven". The extent of AGW is unproven, but the existence is not- after all, CO2 is a greenhouse gas and changes in albedo, aerosols etc. definitely affect the climate (again extents are unproven but the existence isn't). In your posts you usually assume the extreme best-case scenario regarding AGW (e.g. AGW will cause 0.01C of warming over the next 100 years) and the extreme worst-case scenario of expenditure (e.g. spending "trillions" and ignoring the possibility of having to spend "trillions" on North Sea flood defences if sea levels rise by 30cm). Assuming unlikely extremes isn't going to win any debate.

If we shouldn't take action on something that's unproven, why don't I randomly run out into the middle of the road tomorrow? After all, it's not proven that I'm going to be hit by a passing vehicle if I do...

[Admiral_Bobski]

Far, far too black and white I'm afraid. Spending money on alternative energy would come under the bracket of "spending money on reducing CO2 emissions", so should it be rejected because it comes under the bracket of "spending trillions on something that is unproven"?

Also, there's a question over what it is that's supposed to be "unproven". The extent of AGW is unproven, but the existence is not- after all, CO2 is a greenhouse gas and changes in albedo, aerosols etc. definitely affect the climate (again extents are unproven but the existence isn't). In your posts you usually assume the extreme best-case scenario regarding AGW (e.g. AGW will cause 0.01C of warming over the next 100 years) and the extreme worst-case scenario of expenditure (e.g. spending "trillions" and ignoring the possibility of having to spend "trillions" on North Sea flood defences if sea levels rise by 30cm). Assuming unlikely extremes isn't going to win any debate.

If we shouldn't take action on something that's unproven, why don't I randomly run out into the middle of the road tomorrow? After all, it's not proven that I'm going to be hit by a passing vehicle if I do...

In all fairness, TWS, spending money on alternative energy could come under the bracket of "spending money on reducing CO2 emissions" but it could equally come under the bracket of "finding an energy source that isn't finite"

As I've said before, finding alternative means of producing power is a grand idea regardless of whether or not GW is actually true.

Yours pedantically,

CB

:lol:

[rob48]

From "Hard Rain":

"I saw ten thousand talkers whose tongues were all broken"

That'll be the delegates then.

[PersianPaladin]

http://uk.news.yahoo...un-7f81b96.html

So thats why these summits are popular amongst the political class.

:lol:

Edited December 5, 2009 by PersianPaladin

[Solar Cycles]

Well the big day as arrived, let the brainwashing begin!

[noggin]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6736517/Copenhagen-climate-summit-1200-limos-140-private-planes-and-caviar-wedges.html

1,200 limos. 140 private planes. 15,000 delegates. 5,000 journalists. 98 world leaders.

The absolute hypocrisy of this is breathtaking. I am almost rendered speechless. It's an absolute bloody joke (excuse my French). Can they really not see the hypocrisy? Or is it a case of don't do as I do, do as I say?

I think I am going to blow a gasket before this week is out. I am incensed already and it's only Monday morning.

Edited December 7, 2009 by noggin