United Nations Climate Change Copenhagen

[Solar Cycles]

No doubt half of the cash will line the pockets of corrupt politicians or disappear into the arms trade:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/11/tax-climate-aid-brown-sarkozy

Why on earth are we contributing more than anybody else, is it because Gordon thinks our economy is doing better than theirs, although we're the only ones still in recession?

The man won't content, until he has bankrupted us all!

And for what, I keep saying it, but how will historians view all this?

[Roger J Smith]

Dev, I think that reports of our "province turning into a tar pit" are vastly exaggerated. All large industrial projects have some features that do not exactly resemble a national park setting. These can be contained and the idea that Alberta is causing global warming is so ridiculous that it forms one of the main sources of anti-European sentiment in this country. The temperatures across west-central Canada at present range from 10 to 30 degrees below normal. This is the second consecutive winter of extreme cold in this region. Surely the "cause and effect" that is believed like a state religion in the UK and most of Europe has a false god?

If somehow the Oil Sands project could be closed down tomorrow for twenty years, the average temperature of the earth would fall by .00001 C degree. This would perhaps result in, say, Lake Winnipeg freezing over ten seconds later on average, and thawing out twenty seconds later the next spring.

If this is worth achieving at the expense of our national economy, then I fail to see why. And when people say, "when you add all the small impacts together" they add up to about 0.2 C degrees. Natural climate variability is on the order of 2.0 C degrees in the post-glacial. What's the point of all this angst?

Now, I do agree with the concept of gradually reducing greenhouse gas emissions and developing cleaner technology, but some of these early-stage mega-projects have been vastly more harmful than helpful to the overall condition of the human race. We have diverted food resources into ethanol, we have invested in costly and wasteful wind energy projects that are almost useless, and we have monkeyed around with the price of oil to the extent of triggering a global recession. All this has had no impact whatsoever on the climate, it is doing whatever it would have done without us around.

I don't know when the intellectual elite of Europe will finally figure this out, probably never, because the logical thought required for such deduction has been replaced by an unseemly mixture of science, religion and politics that makes people in Beijing chuckle with glee (advancing their revolutionary agenda at no cost to them).

The problem in the world today is that many people have no political representation, that all the main political parties are fixated on this agenda and afraid to challenge it because the media will come down on them with a vengeance (because 99% of mainstream media employees are socialists or to use the p.c. term "progressives" and secretly want to destroy the free enterprise system and replace it with groupthink socialism in which, of course, they will direct the thinking).

Every time we have flirted with this Orwellian nightmare in the past, political responses have saved us from being swept into the trap of socialist economics, and we tend to renew the cycle until a new generation, brainwashed by their teachers in school, comes into the adult electorate and has to go through the same learning cycle. We saw this after the Vietnam period, and again after the early Clinton period, a sharp political correction to restore centre-right political dominanace when things were drifting left. This time around, it seems like an even more imposing task, because of the large size of the "boom echo" generation and the absolute entrenched control of socialists in the media. From what I hear, it is marginally worse in the U.K. than Canada, and of course Canada is considerably worse in this regard than the U.S., yet they have Obama, the unrepentant socialist and global-warmist high priest, at least until 2012.

This is a political issue, like it or not. Even if the science were valid, people still have rights to decide their priorities. There is no absolute priority that says that the world must have arctic ice caps and stable ocean levels. But my strong belief is that the science is crap, and was invented by boffins who wanted to advance a political-correctness groupthink agenda, and found a plausible issue through which they could do it. They have fitted their "computer models" to show nightmare scenarios that are not even remotely connected to the data. They refuse to listen to any criticism and they label their critics as "deniers" but in fact they are the deniers, even half of the Net-weather contingent of pro-AGW lobbyists have gone silent in recent years when it turned out, as many skeptics asserted, that 2006 was not a step on a never-ending warm staircase to oblivion (in terms of summer temperatures) but more like the 1911 of this generation.

Global warming has been disproved in the marketplace of public opinion, and the IPCC and AGW lobby need to get over it, admit they were wrong, and stop trying to do politics in the scientific arena. As for the mainstream of science, they need to wander into the tar pit of "climate science" and find out what's really going on -- this is nothing like astronomy or organic chemistry, this is basically a bunch of high school kids having a lark. I have to wonder what Hubert Lamb would say about all this.

[Devonian]

Dev, I think that reports of our "province turning into a tar pit" are vastly exaggerated. All large industrial projects have some features that do not exactly resemble a national park setting. These can be contained and the idea that Alberta is causing global warming is so ridiculous that it forms one of the main sources of anti-European sentiment in this country. The temperatures across west-central Canada at present range from 10 to 30 degrees below normal. This is the second consecutive winter of extreme cold in this region. Surely the "cause and effect" that is believed like a state religion in the UK and most of Europe has a false god?

Steady on, where did I say Alberta was solely the cause of AGW. Please, read what I said not what you want me to have said.

If somehow the Oil Sands project could be closed down tomorrow for twenty years, the average temperature of the earth would fall by .00001 C degree. This would perhaps result in, say, Lake Winnipeg freezing over ten seconds later on average, and thawing out twenty seconds later the next spring.

Source please.

If this is worth achieving at the expense of our national economy, then I fail to see why. And when people say, "when you add all the small impacts together" they add up to about 0.2 C degrees. Natural climate variability is on the order of 2.0 C degrees in the post-glacial. What's the point of all this angst?

A natural concern for the state of the environment. One we both share - but one which we disagree about what the problems are.

Now, I do agree with the concept of gradually reducing greenhouse gas emissions and developing cleaner technology, but some of these early-stage mega-projects have been vastly more harmful than helpful to the overall condition of the human race. We have diverted food resources into ethanol, we have invested in costly and wasteful wind energy projects that are almost useless, and we have monkeyed around with the price of oil to the extent of triggering a global recession. All this has had no impact whatsoever on the climate, it is doing whatever it would have done without us around.

I don't know when the intellectual elite of Europe will finally figure this out, probably never, because the logical thought required for such deduction has been replaced by an unseemly mixture of science, religion and politics that makes people in Beijing chuckle with glee (advancing their revolutionary agenda at no cost to them).

The problem in the world today is that many people have no political representation, that all the main political parties are fixated on this agenda and afraid to challenge it because the media will come down on them with a vengeance (because 99% of mainstream media employees are socialists or to use the p.c. term "progressives" and secretly want to destroy the free enterprise system and replace it with groupthink socialism in which, of course, they will direct the thinking).

Ahh, it's down to those bloomin' socialists

Every time we have flirted with this Orwellian nightmare in the past, political responses have saved us from being swept into the trap of socialist economics, and we tend to renew the cycle until a new generation, brainwashed by their teachers in school, comes into the adult electorate and has to go through the same learning cycle. We saw this after the Vietnam period, and again after the early Clinton period, a sharp political correction to restore centre-right political dominanace when things were drifting left. This time around, it seems like an even more imposing task, because of the large size of the "boom echo" generation and the absolute entrenched control of socialists in the media. From what I hear, it is marginally worse in the U.K. than Canada, and of course Canada is considerably worse in this regard than the U.S., yet they have Obama, the unrepentant socialist and global-warmist high priest, at least until 2012.

socialist economics...brainwashed...socialists...Obama, the unrepentant socialist...high priest... I think we get the message, don't you?....I'm tempted to reinforced your views by saying I'm a socialist but, well, tbh I don't think I am. No, I'm just interested in science (and increasingly in the way people react to bad news by trying to avoid it).

This is a political issue, like it or not. Even if the science were valid, people still have rights to decide their priorities. There is no absolute priority that says that the world must have arctic ice caps and stable ocean levels. But my strong belief is that the science is crap, and was invented by boffins who wanted to advance a political-correctness groupthink agenda, and found a plausible issue through which they could do it. They have fitted their "computer models" to show nightmare scenarios that are not even remotely connected to the data. They refuse to listen to any criticism and they label their critics as "deniers" but in fact they are the deniers, even half of the Net-weather contingent of pro-AGW lobbyists have gone silent in recent years when it turned out, as many skeptics asserted, that 2006 was not a step on a never-ending warm staircase to oblivion (in terms of summer temperatures) but more like the 1911 of this generation.

Global warming has been disproved in the marketplace of public opinion, and the IPCC and AGW lobby need to get over it, admit they were wrong, and stop trying to do politics in the scientific arena. As for the mainstream of science, they need to wander into the tar pit of "climate science" and find out what's really going on -- this is nothing like astronomy or organic chemistry, this is basically a bunch of high school kids having a lark. I have to wonder what Hubert Lamb would say about all this.

Roger, you're not a fool so you must be pretending science is a democracy? It's not. Science truth isn't decided by public vote! To say 'Global warming has been disproved in the marketplace of public opinion' is, frankly, (given your clear knowledge of things science in your posts) claptrap...Global warming stand or falls on evidence (gathered over time, in the past, now and in the future) not the claims of people with dirty hand grubbing about in other peoples private emails and misinterpreting a few words here (out of umpteen thousands of words) or there for clear political reasons.

Edited December 11, 2009 by Devonian

[laserguy]

This is a political issue, like it or not. Even if the science were valid, people still have rights to decide their priorities. There is no absolute priority that says that the world must have arctic ice caps and stable ocean levels. But my strong belief is that the science is crap, and was invented by boffins who wanted to advance a political-correctness groupthink agenda, and found a plausible issue through which they could do it. They have fitted their "computer models" to show nightmare scenarios that are not even remotely connected to the data. They refuse to listen to any criticism and they label their critics as "deniers" but in fact they are the deniers, even half of the Net-weather contingent of pro-AGW lobbyists have gone silent in recent years when it turned out, as many skeptics asserted, that 2006 was not a step on a never-ending warm staircase to oblivion (in terms of summer temperatures) but more like the 1911 of this generation.

Global warming has been disproved in the marketplace of public opinion, and the IPCC and AGW lobby need to get over it, admit they were wrong, and stop trying to do politics in the scientific arena. As for the mainstream of science, they need to wander into the tar pit of "climate science" and find out what's really going on -- this is nothing like astronomy or organic chemistry, this is basically a bunch of high school kids having a lark. I have to wonder what Hubert Lamb would say about all this.

More cracking stuff! Meanwhile here in the UK,the nights are very long and it's getting cold. Funny how that happens at this time of year,regular as clockwork! Demand for heating and lighting is peaking. Trouble is,there's little or no wind. There could be a wind turbine for every square metre in this now not-so-green and not very pleasant land and we'd still be in the dark and cold when the enviro-vandals have trashed the last of the FF power stations and got what they want. Has the world been saved yet,btw? GB is doing his bit I see (without asking us first),by pledging so many billions to 'developing nations' and putting the final nails in our own coffin. The future's so bright I gotta... etc.

[johnholmes]

.

This is a political issue, like it or not. Even if the science were valid, people still have rights to decide their priorities. There is no absolute priority that says that the world must have arctic ice caps and stable ocean levels. But my strong belief is that the science is crap, and was invented by boffins who wanted to advance a political-correctness groupthink agenda, and found a plausible issue through which they could do it. They have fitted their "computer models" to show nightmare scenarios that are not even remotely connected to the data. They refuse to listen to any criticism and they label their critics as "deniers" but in fact they are the deniers, even half of the Net-weather contingent of pro-AGW lobbyists have gone silent in recent years when it turned out, as many skeptics asserted, that 2006 was not a step on a never-ending warm staircase to oblivion (in terms of summer temperatures) but more like the 1911 of this generation.

Global warming has been disproved in the marketplace of public opinion, and the IPCC and AGW lobby need to get over it, admit they were wrong, and stop trying to do politics in the scientific arena. As for the mainstream of science, they need to wander into the tar pit of "climate science" and find out what's really going on -- this is nothing like astronomy or organic chemistry, this is basically a bunch of high school kids having a lark. I have to wonder what Hubert Lamb would say about all this.

I love reading your forecast posts Roger even though I both fail to understand some and disagree with some.

The above though is no credit to you. It sounds like someone who has been unable to get their views accepted, I understand the frustration that can cause. However to make some of the comments above is both untrue and manifestly unfair on many scientists-meteorologists and climatologists-I was a meteorologist for almost 40 years and to be accused of having a political agenda is laughable or outrageous, depending on ones mood when reading the accusation.

More constructive posts please mate and less of your own political comments. please?

[rob48]

"More constructive posts please mate and less of your own political comments. please?"

Of course, the pro AGW posts are always politics-free.

[Solar Cycles]

I love reading your forecast posts Roger even though I both fail to understand some and disagree with some.

The above though is no credit to you. It sounds like someone who has been unable to get their views accepted, I understand the frustration that can cause. However to make some of the comments above is both untrue and manifestly unfair on many scientists-meteorologists and climatologists-I was a meteorologist for almost 40 years and to be accused of having a political agenda is laughable or outrageous, depending on ones mood when reading the accusation.

More constructive posts please mate and less of your own political comments. please?

I too love reading Rogers forecasts, but also think he is spot on with his views on climate science ( no surprises there John). Whatever you say John, climate science is, and will continue to be a political hot potato.

Until scientist stop playing political ideologist, then the public will continue to grow more and more tiresome of their OTT rants, about how we are all doomed, on little or no evidence! The proof is in the pudding so to speak, you can manipulate data all you like, but that won't mask what the real world data shows us?

[noggin]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235036/Copenhagen-climate-change-summit-Brown-Sarkozy-global-tax-bankers-used-tackle-climate-change.html

Fellow NWers............Gordon wants us to be proud that we are giving away £1.5 billion to help fight the crap. Please excuse my language. That's twice in a couple of days. It shows how much this is starting to really wind me up.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wholeheartedly agree with Roger.

(I didn't know there was animosity between Europe and Canada, though, and I'm sorry to hear it. )

[stewfox]

http://www.dailymail...ate-change.html

Fellow NWers............Gordon wants us to be proud that we are giving away £1.5 billion to help fight the crap. Please excuse my language. That's twice in a couple of days. It shows how much this is starting to really wind me up.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wholeheartedly agree with Roger.

(I didn't know there was animosity between Europe and Canada, though, and I'm sorry to hear it. )

Wether its 'crap' remains to be seen.

I dont like the idea all scientist are a no good bunch. Use to burn them is they said the world is round dont want to burn them for saying AGW

Many have and do a lot of great work, particulary in the field

[Methuselah]

The usual ragbag assortment of unsubstantiated claims, I see: politically-motivated, envy-motivated, sour grapes-motivated, the lot...Unfortunately, none seems to be science-motivated??

[noggin]

I dont like the idea all scientist are a no good bunch.

Oh, no, nor do I and I hope it didn't come across that way.

Many, many scientists have done miraculous work for humanity.

What I don't go along with is AGW. I believe that the warmings and coolings are natural cycles and are driven by the Sun.

I do believe also that we should help those less fortunate than ourselves, but there are so many issues besides the AGW/natural cycles one.

Where will the money end up? In whose pockets? Who will monitor the spending of the money? Why are we giving more than France and Germany? Can we really afford it, when we are £800 (?)billion in debt?

Why has not a proper amount of taxpayers' money been given to help those flooded and left homeless or with ruined businesses in our own country? Places like Cockermouth and Warrington, and I believe that there are people in Gloucestershire who are still not back in their homes after last year's floods.

He is trying to curry favour, I believe. I also believe that he is making himself (and us) a laughing stock.

Edited December 12, 2009 by noggin

[Methuselah]

I wonder what the costs (to our precious economy) will be, of doing nothing??

Even with my scepticness(?) scepticity(?) scepticality(?), I wonder what'll happen if/when 90% of the world's paddy-fields are rendered useless due to inundation...Will the free-marketeers re-educate rice (as in Lysenko's 'cunning plan' to teach maize to grow in Siberia? ) to grow on mountain slopes???

[La Bise]

Don't forget Pete, it's all a socialist plot man! The commies want to take away your car and deprive you of your God given right to eat junk day after day after day (and those damn commies want you to be the beneficiary of a health system as well...ye fools...)

I'm kind of hoping it's true, as a left-wing man myself, I'd love to see that rampant, rank ultra-capitalist system being replaced by something a bit fairer, even a good old Rhine Capitalism setup would be an improvement.

[Methuselah]

Don't forget Pete, it's all a socialist plot man! The commies want to take away your car and deprive you of your God given right to eat junk day after day after day (and those damn commies want you to be the beneficiary of a health system as well...ye fools...)

I'm kind of hoping it's true, as a left-wing man myself, I'd love to see that rampant, rank ultra-capitalist system being replaced by something a bit fairer, even a good old Rhine Capitalism setup would be an improvement.

Me too. And, I'm not really much of a 'lefty'!

I heard a 'sceptic' (in reality an outright denier!) babbling-on about 'subterfuge,' 'data-rigging,' 'the globe's been cooling for years,' blah blah blah, on the radio yesterday...When will these people start using facts to back-up their claims??

[Admiral_Bobski]

Me too. And, I'm not really much of a 'lefty'!

I heard a 'sceptic' (in reality an outright denier!) babbling-on about 'subterfuge,' 'data-rigging,' 'the globe's been cooling for years,' blah blah blah, on the radio yesterday...When will these people start using facts to back-up their claims??

...when the facts reveal themselves...

...so never, then...

CB

[La Bise]

I've just read that Met Office release about 2009 and 2010 in term of global tempetures, cooling my backside...

Oh hang, all scientists are crooks...forgot man, it's a communist plot...jeez, I won't listen a word they say anymore and just believe the first blog I read on the internet, especially if it tells me what I want to hear ("It's fine man, carry on driving your 4x4 and eat McDonald's, life is great and your taxes won't rise either if you lobby your mp, the public has decided!").

Or is it solar cycles? Trust those idiots academics not to spot the obvious eh. Or hide it because of the commie plot...

God I'm confused now...

[stewfox]

I believe that there are people in Gloucestershire who are still not back in their homes after last year's floods.

It was 2007 I'm afraid

[laserguy]

Don't forget Pete, it's all a socialist plot man! The commies want to take away your car and deprive you of your God given right to eat junk day after day after day (and those damn commies want you to be the beneficiary of a health system as well...ye fools...)

I'm kind of hoping it's true, I'd love to see that rampant, rank ultra-capitalist system being replaced by something a bit fairer, even a good old Rhine Capitalism setup would be an improvement.

Me too,wholeheartedly. And I don't drive a 4X4 and I despise McD's,P*psi etc etc etc. What's that got to do,anything at all to with AGW being a total crock of ***?

[noggin]

Even with my scepticness(?) scepticity(?) scepticality(?)

Sceptitudiness?

[Methuselah]

Sceptitudiness?

Thanks nog...That's the one I was looking for...

[noggin]

Oh hang, all scientists are crooks...forgot man, it's a communist plot...jeez, I won't listen a word they say anymore and just believe the first blog I read on the internet, especially if it tells me what I want to hear ("It's fine man, carry on driving your 4x4 and eat McDonald's, life is great and your taxes won't rise either if you lobby your mp, the public has decided!").

Or is it solar cycles? Trust those idiots academics not to spot the obvious eh. Or hide it because of the commie plot...

I can't see where you are coming from, here, I'm afraid.

Has someone here said that all scientists are crooks?

Has someone here said it's all a communist plot?

Who is it that just believes the first blog they read on the internet, especially if it tells them what they want to hear.....that it is fine, you can carry on driving your 4x4 and eating your McDonalds etc.?

Who has questioned whether "idiot academics" (as you put it) can be trusted not to spot the obvious, or to hide it behind a commie plot?

I am a bit taken aback by your post and would appreciate it if you could enlighten me, regarding the questions that I have raised here.

On the other hand, maybe I have had a sense-of-humour bypass today and have missed the humour by a mile?

Or, is there some subtle message hidden therein and my perception, dulled by a heavy cold, is not as sharp as it could be?

It was 2007 I'm afraid

Thanks for the clarification, stewfox.

[Devonian]

I can't see where you are coming from, here, I'm afraid.

Has someone here said that all scientists are crooks?

Has someone here said it's all a communist plot?

Not in as many words but here is a sample of what has been said in this thread...

"AGW being a total crock of ***?"

"But when the critics are all gone to the Gulag or the grave, then they realize, way too late, who is really pulling the strings and why."

"It,along with the whole AGW 'thing' is 100% scam."

"Greenpeace lost it's way many years ago, it's now nothing more than a eco-terrorist group."

and this is the message from one paragraph of a post a page back:

"socialist economics...brainwashed...socialists...Obama, the unrepentant socialist...high priest.."

Ok, not commies but just about everything else...and science? Well, where is it?

Edited December 12, 2009 by Devonian

[Methuselah]

Not in as many words but here is a sample of what has been said in this thread...

"AGW being a total crock of ***?"

"But when the critics are all gone to the Gulag or the grave, then they realize, way too late, who is really pulling the strings and why."

"It,along with the whole AGW 'thing' is 100% scam."

"Greenpeace lost it's way many years ago, it's now nothing more than a eco-terrorist group."

and this is the message from one paragraph of a post a page back:

"socialist economics...brainwashed...socialists...Obama, the unrepentant socialist...high priest.."

Ok, not commies but just about everything else...and science? Well, where is it?

Dev...I think it's safe to say that it isn't!!

[7andY]

I can't see where you are coming from, here, I'm afraid.

Has someone here said that all scientists are crooks?

Has someone here said it's all a communist plot?

Who is it that just believes the first blog they read on the internet, especially if it tells them what they want to hear.....that it is fine, you can carry on driving your 4x4 and eating your McDonalds etc.?

Who has questioned whether "idiot academics" (as you put it) can be trusted not to spot the obvious, or to hide it behind a commie plot?

I am a bit taken aback by your post and would appreciate it if you could enlighten me, regarding the questions that I have raised here.

On the other hand, maybe I have had a sense-of-humour bypass today and have missed the humour by a mile?

Or, is there some subtle message hidden therein and my perception, dulled by a heavy cold, is not as sharp as it could be? :lol:

Thanks for the clarification, stewfox.

I think - I hope - one has to read it with one's irony hat on full square

Cheers, 7&Y

[PersianPaladin]

I look at it like this.

Who benefits?

Do big energy companies likely benefit in some way if we don't curb emissions? Yep.

Do big energy companies and banks likely benefit if we cut emissions by a limited amount and have some ponzi-scheme derivatives game? Most likely.

Whats the majority consensus on the science? The majority is that of manmade global-warming being their biggest concern.

Are these scientists most likely allied by special interests in the banking (carbon-credit) sector? Maybe, but not neccessarily.

Do we have to follow a proposed political/corporate-lobbied solution to global warming that results in selling their specific products? No, not neccessarily. So I personally think its best avoiding the potential future dangers and avoiding the risk that these majority scientists are RIGHT. The socio-economic options of risk mitigation are broader than what a lot of people may realise. The need to critically address the money-driven chain of interests in terms of influence on policy is also important. Conclusion? The precautionary principle.

Edited December 12, 2009 by PersianPaladin