Copenhagen moment of bitter truth

Thank goodness for some old fashioned power brokering to dramatise the issues of Copenhagen – US-China deadlock, EU standing apart, Third World accusing the First world of planning a Holocaust to come. You have to make some allowances. Everyone’s very tired and emotional. The crucial omission? Without a strict timetable for verifiable cuts, the 20% goal for 2020 lacks backbone. The BBC accepts there was a climate deal of sorts; the Guardian proclaims failure, the Times, a poor fudge. (At least there’s no holding back on the breaking news on this one in the MSM’s web editions.). US reaction in Huffpost in the middle of the night is sparse and fairly muted- but then Americans are cool on climate change anyway. Inevitably, the sophisticated analysis comes in the NY Times but it’s more detatched than Americans need to be. It’s easy to throw blame in the direction of the high profile. But whatever chances remained for a meaningful deal, Obama blew it on the podium by openly clashing with Chinese premier Wen. In that one speech, the charisma degenerated into arrogance. After that, any deal was about saving face and surviving for another day.The dream of world harmony was put into words by Tennyson a century and a half ago.

From Lockesley Hall
Till the war-drum throb’d no longer
and the battle-flags were furl’d,
in the Parliament of man,
the Federation of the world”.

From Idylls of the King
“The old order changeth, yielding place to new.”

But not yet, alas. It may have been too much to hope for that a single hothouse UN conference was going to produce a re-ordering of the world’s economy in a recession. At least after all the shuffling and warm words before Copenhagen, nearly 200 states are now facing reality. They know they have to keep buggering on. That’s what we all have to live with.

  • pinni

    too much to hope for that a single hothouse UN conference was going to produce a re-ordering of the world’s economy

    Is that what this has been all about, re-ordering the world’s economy? Overthrowing capitalism and enforcing socialism, perhaps? If so, thank goodness it didn’t succeed.

  • Brian Walker

    pinni, No ofcourse not. The re-ordering is about the admitted extra costs of tackling climate change in the medium term, versus the long term extra costs of climate change if left untackled.

  • pinni

    Guest, it’s probably pollution from Mars Rover 🙂

  • Dewi

    Might want to add the agreed document to the post Brian….it’s an astonishing 5 pages long, of which 2 are unquantified Appendices for targets…

  • DoctorWho

    Pinni, surely the pursuit of greed and obsession with consumerism and profit has brought us to this situation.

    Western economies are built around the fuel industry, everything we do is dictated by it. If you crack open a tin of beer later, think for a minute how that beer eventually got to your mouth and how many emmisions of greehouse gasses it took to get it to your lips. Even something so simple that you take for granted has an affect.

    I have no doubt that a better social justice for everyone in the world will be more beneficial to the planet long term. New ways of providing heat and transport that are cleaner while still efficent. Where has the electric car disappeared to? Something to do with the oil industry perhaps?

    Some form of Carbon Rationing is needed and in my opinion every person on the planet should be given an equal ration as we all rely on fossil fuels. Perhaps you think people in less developed countries don´t deserve that even though they have contributed far less to global warming than the rest of us.

    There still seems to be those people who think the whole thing is a hoax, even though the evidence is so overwhelmingly saying it is happening. As Hugo Chavez said the other day, if the crisis we face had´ve been about the survival of a bank, we would have done something by now.

  • pinni

    Greenpeace has some pertinent comments on the ‘agreement’: no matter how the politicians spin it or how the media interprets it, it sucks.

    Obama called it a “historic first step” and it’s neither historic nor a first step. The Kyoto Protocol was both, yet in the 12 years since it was laid down, we’ve barely progressed… yesterday a small group of these leaders flew in, claimed the deal was done and flew out again, leaving chaos in their wake – and other leaders outraged.

  • Coll Ciotach

    I am glad that Copenhagen has generally failed. The myth of man made global warming is due to be blown apart.

    We are in a negative NAO. We are going to have a cold winter. This is the reverse of what has been the standard since 1970. The positive NAO has been responsible for a wet amd mild winter pattern. Now we are going back into a negative pattern, perhaps for the next 30 odd years which will pout us back to the pattern of the 1940’s to 1970.

    Couple this with a resumption of the sun spot cycle and we will see that this year marks the zenith of the current warming spell.

    As the seas get colder we will see greater absorption of CO2.

    Global warming has had its day.

    Buy fur this Christmas – you will need it in late January and February.

  • DoctorWho

    @coll ciotach

    http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2009/01/

    Scientific Opinions on Man-Made Global Warming
    A recent survey of 3,146 earth scientists, conducted by the University of Illinois at Chicago, indicates that there is overwhelming consensus among those surveyed that in the past 200+ years mean global temperatures have been rising and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.

    The authors of the survey contacted over 10,200 experts listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute’s Directory of Geoscience Department to take part in the on-line poll, according to the EurekAlert article.

    Only those invited could participate and computer IP addresses of participants were recorded and used to prevent repeat voting. Questions used were reviewed by a polling expert who checked for bias in phrasing, such as suggesting an answer by the way a question was worded.

    The two questions were………..

    1. Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels?
    2. Has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?

    About 90% of the total surveyed agreed with question #1, while 82% agreed with question #2.

    For question #2, the authors broke it down by climatologists, petroleum geologists and meteorologists………

    97% of the climatologists agreed that human activity has been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures, while that figure was only 64% for meteorologists and 47% for the petroleum geologists.

    The author, Peter Doran made an interesting quote about the meteorologists, which I, as a 20-year meteorologist, personally think is pretty much on target…..”Most members of the public think meteorologists know climate, but most of them actually study very short-term phenomenon.”

    Doran also made a point about the climatologists…..”They’re the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you’re likely to believe in global warming and humankind’s contribution to it.”

    ———————————————

    Even though the survey from above may be quite revealing, we also remember the latest 2008 U.S. Senate Minority report, which indicated that more than 650 international scientists now dissent over man-made global warming claims.

    The updated report now found a total of 650 dissenting scientists and former UN IPCC scientists from around the globe that challenged man-made global warming claims by the IPCC and Al Gore.

    I looked through the updated report, which shows the newest batch of man-made global warming dissenters and skeptics and found a variety of chemists, economists, biologists, geologists, physicists and meteorologists, including our own Mark Paquette (Page 61), from AccuWeather.com, who is a frequent contributer to this blog on the weekends. I was not aware he was on the list and I doubt he knew about it either, but I will let him know.
    ————————————————-
    The link also provides articles on the increasing number of idiots on the internet spreading the hoax theory, do a google search and you are bombarded with hoax propaganda.

    Sure Coll Ciotach, it´s all a commie con trick isn´t it.

  • Coll Ciotach

    Doctor Who

    Had a look at that sight – guess what – someone who agrees with me – nearly word for word

    http://www.accuweather.com/ukie/bastardi-europe-blog.asp?partner=accuweather

  • pinni

    Doc,

    Only those invited could participate

    That’s an interesting phrase. I wonder who selected the scientists who could participate in the survey, based on what criteria?

    I think the major point in all this is that the science is not settled, like those who benefit most from global warming alarmism insist. While data continues to be massaged and ‘homogenised’ to suit the cause of the AGW fundamentalists and their movement is fronted by a bunch of hypocrites, AGW sceptics are going to be very difficult to persuade.

  • DoctorWho

    coll ciotach

    lol The accu weather site, expresses the views of all sides, it´s just that burkes like you and the link to the views of Joe Bastardi, yeah thats right Joe Bastardi tend to be given to much air time.

    Bastardi is considered a bit of a joke and attention seeker by other meteorologists, he is often seen on cable TV presenting the weather bare chested and flexing his muscles, apparently he´s a body builder in his spare time.

    http://images.chron.com/blogs/sciguy/archives/BastardiPoster.jpg

    Too much time is given to quacks like Bastard. Why does it not bother you that the Senate Minority report clearly lied in it´s inclusion of expert opinion?

    Why against the most overwhelming evidence do you keep your head in the sand?

    Why when 97% of climatologists say man contributes to global warming, do you say they are wrong? Sorry the answer to that one is Joe the Bastard said so.

    “The Age Of Stupid” doesn´t even begin to describe it.

  • DoctorWho

    pinni

    As expressed in post no 9. the Senate Minority report has been discredited, it was claiming the expert opinion of Mark Paquette, when in fact his opinion is the opposite to their propaganda. How many more “experts” does it treat this way? The Senate report was designed to ensure public opinion around the Kyoto Protocol was kept divided.

    The science is very much settled, by the ones that matter, the scientists. Since the start of Copenhagen organizations seem intent on discrediting the science and it appears many are buying into it. I wonder who profits from this?

  • pinni

    DrWho,
    You may use all the insulting terms you wish (burke/Bastard/ostrich/liar/stupid) to describe AGW sceptics, but facts are stubborn things. I reckon this graphic clearly illustrates why a growing number of people are becoming more and more sceptical of the AGW alarmists’ claims and theories.

    Contrary to the predictions of ‘climate scientists’, the earth has not warmed in the past ten years or so, which, obviously, is another unmistakable indicator that the scaremongers have got something seriously wrong with their ‘models’.

    The jury is still out!

    DrWho, you say you wonder who profits from the controversy. Interesting point! It’s always good to follow the money.

  • Coll Ciotach

    Glad to see you got the vitriol out of your system, however when you strip out the nasty attacks on other people and we look at your assertions they are sen as weak. Which is why you have to cover your argument with insults.

    Firstly – 97% of climatologists – where does that figure come from?

    He may be seen as a joke but he gets things correct – he said Europe would be covered in snow when the others said mild winter, he was correct. Perhaps he is sen as a joke as he is not following the party line.

    I would like to hear what you said are the lies in the senate report – and perhaps you would comment on the inaccuracies/mistakes on the global warming side too.

    I do not hide my head in the sand – I read and come to my conclusions which are different from yours. Sorry I do not agree with you.

    Age of Stupid – better applied to those who accept without challenge.

    Wonder why that is stupid.

  • pinni

    Hey, DrWho, are you still wondering who benefits?

    Try this one on for size! Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) no less. Set to make billions on the scam.

  • DoctorWho

    coll ciotach

    “Age of Stupid – better applied to those who accept without challenge.”

    But that is in fact what you are doing with this anti man made global warming propaganda. Prior to Copenhagen there has been a major concerted effort to discredit MM GW theory. A highly organised campaign including hacking and the spread of lies. You seem to be taken in by it, so much so that you use someone like Joe Bastardi, I mean really fuck me, as an expert.

    If in doubt just call em a bunch of commies.

    Next you will be trying to tell me that there is no chance of fossil fuels running out.

    Age of stupid is being kind to you.

  • Coll Ciotach

    There is no need to be insulting – it only discredits you.

    The hacking and spreading of lies bit I take it is a reeference to the emails which were circulated. If so I leave it to others as to who the liars are in that particular scenario.
    As you like to cut and paste others assertions let me refute your posting with another persons answer which I dgot from a quick google search using your posting as a search item.

    http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1382723

    I suppose he also is either stupid/ lying or a commie hating whatever (insert insult here)

  • DoctorWho

    (insert insult here)

    I was going to say nob end, but your continual posting of irrelevant blogs more or less explains that.

    I notice you never answer any of my questions. even most of the sceptical scientists now believe humans play an important part in Global Warming. We are now at the stsge where the ignorant should not be allowed to get in the way of progress.

  • pinni

    DrWho

    Insulting people seems to come naturally to you. Imagine using the phrase ‘irrelevant blogs’.

    Have you any idea how many people you have offended?

    btw, I think you would really enjoy this irrelevant blog

  • DoctorWho

    Climatologists = wrong

    Meteotologists = wrong

    Sciectists = wrong

    Right wing torries blogging in the Daily Telegraph
    Obviously right. The Age Of The Fucking Dumb Asehole.

    “irrelevant blogs” I never implied all bloggers where irrelevant, but when you use outdated science like the sunspot cycle to explain the current take on GW, it is highly irrelevant.

    There is not the will of world leaders to change because they can´t, they are on the payroll of the oil companies. Im beginning to think you are to.

  • DoctorWho

    please excuse the awful spelling, im a cnut

  • pinni

    DrWho,
    what r u on?

  • DoctorWho

    “DrWho,
    what r u on?”

    Cigarettes, you know those things with vitamins b and c, and which are good for the lungs. Unless of course you are one of those idiots who have been taken in by the health lobbyists who say ciggies can kill. My god there are many gullible people out there.

  • Dread Cthulhu

    Doctor Who: “As expressed in post no 9. the Senate Minority report has been discredited, it was claiming the expert opinion of Mark Paquette, when in fact his opinion is the opposite to their propaganda. How many more “experts” does it treat this way? The Senate report was designed to ensure public opinion around the Kyoto Protocol was kept divided.”

    Although, strangely, the one time they had the stomach to bring it up to an admittedly non-binding vote, the Senate voted against Kyoto unanimously.

    As for the meteorologists, we’re talking a collection of fellas who cannot give us a really accurate five-day forecast, we should trust them to tell us what is going to happen in the next couple of centuries?

    Lastly, correlation is not causation. There has been a natural variation in the Earth’s climate, with such things as the Medieval warm period and the “little ice-age.” As pointed out elsewhere, there has been evidence of climate change on both Mars (evidenced by shrinking polar caps” and Jupiter (evidenced by greater turbulence), yet neither of those sphere has even a single SUV or coal-fired power plant.

    The CRU was caught playing silly-buggers with the data — the “trick” to “hide the decline” was to change the basis of the graph, so that the information prior to the trick has no real relation to the information after the trick, which makes the use of the graph questionable, since it isn’t “apples to apples,” pre- vs. post- trick. Likewise, why the discussions of how to step around FOI requests, if there is nothing to hide?

    If what the global-warming crowd is pushing is “science,” why all the secrecy re: their data? Why not put the whole of the data set out into the public domain where it can be review? Could it be, as has been shown in some cases, that the data has been cherry-picked, where only those data points supporting global-warming — the Siberian tree-ring study uses a mere fraction of the data, relying on more more than a dozen trees out of a set of over one hundred.

  • DoctorWho

    Dread Cthulu

    DC

    Back in 1992 during the Rio conference on global warming, I was more sceptical than most about GW. I thought it was just the new bogie man sent to beat us like in the eighties when doom and gloom was the order of the day as nuclear war was inevitable. To me early nineties GW was just something that Sting and Jesus Bono attached themselves to.

    However I have seen much evidence to convince me that it´s time to turn of the sceptic whine and start raising the game on further prevention of human activity global warming. Back in the nineties GW sceptics in the science community actually suggested the planet was cooling. Information from satelites was the evidence for this, `evidence´ which was then proved to be faulty. They in fact admitted that the very thing they where arguing against was in fact happening, i.e. the earth warming. Since then many scientists have moved away from the sceptical side to the plain fact that human activity GW is real. There are those who also went on to form the opinion that while GW is real, human activity is not relevant to it.

    Sceptics point to as you to mention the “Medievil warm period” and “little ice-age”. The problem being the lack of therometer evidence to dispel or confirm these theories. Howevrer Professor Michael Mann using temperature proxys (tree aging) was able to show (hockey stick graph) that the “medievil warm period” was insignificant compared to the climate change of the 20th century. Of course sceptics accuse Mann of fraud without actually disproving his data, and im afraid this is the problem with the sceptics, they keep throwing the mud, science disproves it so they scream fraud ect. Although Mann´s graph may not be perfect, other studies using proxys rsult in the same conclusions that in the last few thousand years at no time has the climate been hotter than the second half of the 20th century and significantly so.

    They then pointed to solar activity, a theory the sceptics used alaramingly well in the cahnnel 4 programme “the Great Global Warming Swindle”. The problem being and one they didn´t point out was that solar activity was on the decline since 1980 and therefore could not be linked to temperatres rising.

    Today only a small minority of sceintists remain scepticaln nevetheless there is a well orchestrated and powerful campaign particularly on the net to dis-credit the obvious and most proven expalanation on global warming which is it is cuased by carbon emmisions from the activities of human beings.

    The Global Climate Coalition was set up by the industries who produce carbon fules to sow the seeds of dis-content amongst the public, to use their considerable power to convince that the science was not yet settled so there was nothing to worry about and of course they had a powerful friend in Bush.

    The Frank Lunce memo in 2003 clearly shows the sceptic campaign is about stiring the pot, placing doubt in the minds of folk where there should be concern. The Lunce memo was not as much a leaked memo but more a leaked policy of the Bush administration.

    The sceptic campaign is now not even sceptical, it is now solely about discrediting the evidence through lies and propaganda. They take adavantage of the fact that science is always changing in the pursuit of truth. Truth is something missing from the nonsense spread by the former Global Warming Coalition or as they are now known as climate sceptics.

    There is no doubt the overwhelming evidence is behind human activity global warming, it is certainly beyond reasonable doubt. The scientific battle is over, we should start action now before it´s to late.

  • pinni

    Back in 1992

    Is that not around the time when some of those who are now involved in the current AGW Cult were predicting a new Ice Age?

  • Dread Cthulhu

    Doctor Who: “Sceptics point to as you to mention the “Medievil warm period” and “little ice-age”. The problem being the lack of therometer evidence to dispel or confirm these theories. ”

    Actually, the thermometer, while not available for the Medieval warming period, were around for the little ice-age. However, they are not “theories,” they are matters of historical fact, based on a host of historical accounts and similar evidence. In other words, how many people, historically speaking, have to be lying in their journals and histories of the era, for the CRU to be telling the truth?

    DoctorWho: “Howevrer Professor Michael Mann using temperature proxys (tree aging) was able to show (hockey stick graph) that the “medievil warm period” was insignificant compared to the climate change of the 20th century. Of course sceptics accuse Mann of fraud without actually disproving his data”

    Coming down to cases, Mann didn’t “release” his data, so it was a trifle difficult to challenge it. Secondly, his chosen “proxy” for temperature, if I recall correctly, were tree rings, which means he chose a proxy that was vulnerable to multiple variables to stand in for temperature. Thirdly, again, iirc, the “spike” on the hockey stick graph arises from his abandonment of his proxy in favor of actual temperatures — the “trick” to “hide the decline.” That being the case, the graph isn’t worth the paper its printed on — the graph is inconsistent in its basis. Some of those tree studies, we have since found out, relied on as few as three trees to base their conclusions, with a far larger number of tree cores excluded as being “inconvenient.”

    DoctorWho: “im afraid this is the problem with the sceptics, they keep throwing the mud, science disproves it so they scream fraud ect.”

    When they go to such great lengths to prevent their data from coming out into the public domain, as the CRU has, what alternate hypothesis would be reasonable?

    DoctorWho: “There is no doubt the overwhelming evidence is behind human activity global warming, it is certainly beyond reasonable doubt. The scientific battle is over, we should start action now before it´s to late. ”

    It sounds as if you’ve swallowed the shibboleth that “consensus = science,” which isn’t the case. “Consensus” was the Roman Catholic Church telling Galileo that the Earth was the center of what we now call the solar system.

    Science should be demonstrable, repeatable and verifiable. By burying the data-sets, under such names as “1400-censored” (think they picked that name out of a hat??) and musing that they would rather delete them than release them as part of a Freedom of Information request makes a mockery of the notion that this is science. Simply listening to the foolishness in Copenhagen makes clear this is more about the redistribution of wealth from the developed world to the developing world, or did you not listen to the speeches of Chaves, Mugabe and Morales?