United Nations Climate Change Copenhagen

[noggin]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/dec/06/50-papers-leader-climate-change

Over 50 papers, worldwide, are going to be carrying the same editorial re climate change.

I should ignore the coverage of Copenhagen, really. I am in ever-increasing danger of losing my sanity.

[Solar Cycles]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/dec/06/50-papers-leader-climate-change

Over 50 papers, worldwide, are going to be carrying the same editorial re climate change.

I should ignore the coverage of Copenhagen, really. I am in ever-increasing danger of losing my sanity.

:lol: :lol:

It's a mad, mad, mad, mad, mad........ WORLD!

Also I think both sides of the camp on here, think this is nothing more than a publicity seeking stunt, by unscrupulous politicians hoping to appear that they care about the environment!

[Methuselah]

It's a mad, mad, mad, mad, mad........ WORLD!

Also I think both sides of the camp on here, think this is nothing more than a publicity seeking stunt, by unscrupulous politicians hoping to appear that they care about the environment!

My politest definition of this latest 'soiree' (sp?) tends towards - a load of cobblers! :lol:

[Devonian]

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?

Some people complain about being labelled 'sceptics' or 'deniers', yet here other people are labelled 'hypocrites'.

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

:lol: :lol: <_< <_< <_< <_<

Not a good idea. This is the science behind why they are there - and please, no labelling of the authors

[Methuselah]

Why can this thing not be done by video-link? We have the technology!

[noggin]

Some people complain about being labelled 'sceptics' or 'deniers', yet here other people are labelled 'hypocrites'.

I have indeed objected to being called a "behind-the-times, anti-science, flat-earth climate sceptic". I also have objected to having my actions described as "dangerous and deceitful". I have posted at some length as to why each and every one of those descriptions does not fit me.

However, to bang on about cutting the use of fossil fuels and then to use 1,200 limos and 140 private planes just smacks of hypocrisy. Maybe these vehicles and craft are fuelled by some clean and sustainable fuel. If so, then my sincere apologies to them all. But unless and until this is shown to be the case, then I shall continue to call them hypocrites. They are telling us to behave in one way, whilst behaving in a totally different way themselves. If it looks like hypocrisy and it sounds like hypocrisy, then it is hypocrisy.

Or could it be elitism? There's a thought............

Edited December 7, 2009 by noggin

[Devonian]

I have indeed objected to being called a "behind-the-times, anti-science, flat-earth climate sceptic". I also have objected to having my actions described as "dangerous and deceitful". I have posted at some length as to why each and every one of those descriptions does not fit me.

However, to bang on about cutting the use of fossil fuels and then to use 1,200 limos and 140 private planes just smacks of hypocrisy. Maybe these vehicles and craft are fuelled by some clean and sustainable fuel. If so, then my sincere apologies to them all. But unless and until this is shown to be the case, then I shall continue to call them hypocrites. They are telling us to behave in one way, whilst behaving in a totally different way themselves. If it looks like hypocrisy and it sounds like hypocrisy, then it is hypocrisy.

Or could it be elitism? There's a thought............

And if it looks like someone (not suggesting you or anyone atm) is denying something, sounds like they are denying something then it is what?

[noggin]

And if it looks like someone (not suggesting you or anyone atm) is denying something, sounds like they are denying something then it is what?

It is someone denying something.

Are you getting at something?

[Admiral_Bobski]

And if it looks like someone (not suggesting you or anyone atm) is denying something, sounds like they are denying something then it is what?

It would mean that they could be termed a denier, but only if that denial was not backed up by valid reasoning.

Meanwhile you have sidestepped the issue of whether or not the Copenhagen Conference delegates are, in fact, hypocrites - what do you think?

Not a good idea. This is the science behind why they are there - and please, no labelling of the authors

But Dev, you've just labelled them yourself - you've labelled them as "authors"

CB

Edited December 7, 2009 by Captain_Bobski

[Dartmoor_Matt]

Hypocrites, maybe. Ironic? Definately.

Perhaps they don't want to hold teleconferences for fear of a leak... sorry, hack.

[Mr Maunder]

Perhaps they don't want to hold teleconferences for fear of a leak... sorry, hack.

Teleconferencing, well that's no good, won't get many pictures on the front pages of newspapers or on 24 hr so called "news"!

MM

Edited December 7, 2009 by Mr Maunder

[Gray-Wolf]

This is the science behind why they are there -

Even more riveting than the LI!

Every climate skeptic should do themselves a favour and skim through the paper.Though I'm sure they are familiar with the 4th Ann. Report this fills in areas that were forced out of that paper (as we "didn't know enough"). The Cryosphere and Ocean warming are two areas I find impossible to ignore.

[VillagePlank]

Every climate skeptic should do themselves a favour and skim through the paper.

There's nothing new, here, though?

[laserguy]

However, to bang on about cutting the use of fossil fuels and then to use 1,200 limos and 140 private planes just smacks of hypocrisy.

These people are so far gone that it hasn't even occured to them what they are doing and how blatantly phoney they are proving without doubt the whole AGW thing really is. Good,let them proceed - it'll register in even the most sluggard minds eventually. Teleconferencing sounds like a good idea initially, 'til you consider the 'carbon footprint' of delivering all that champagne and all those canapes to the individual clusters of delegates around the world. Maybe that's the deal? It's like having a doctor who smokes 5000 fags a day telling you that it's bad for you,whilst proclaiming that he loves live and has every intention of living to a ripe old age. By some quirk of fate and more than a little arcane chicanery,I hope all these clowns end up on the dole where they can consider cutting their personal CO2 emissions to their heart's content.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Even more riveting than the LI!

Every climate skeptic should do themselves a favour and skim through the paper.Though I'm sure they are familiar with the 4th Ann. Report this fills in areas that were forced out of that paper (as we "didn't know enough"). The Cryosphere and Ocean warming are two areas I find impossible to ignore.

I'm downloading it now - I'm interested to see whether they have included the solar papers that were forced out of the AR4...

These people are so far gone that it hasn't even occured to them what they are doing and how blatantly phoney they are proving without doubt the whole AGW thing really is. Good,let them proceed - it'll register in even the most sluggard minds eventually. Teleconferencing sounds like a good idea initially, 'til you consider the 'carbon footprint' of delivering all that champagne and all those canapes to the individual clusters of delegates around the world. Maybe that's the deal? It's like having a doctor who smokes 5000 fags a day telling you that it's bad for you,whilst proclaiming that he loves live and has every intention of living to a ripe old age. By some quirk of fate and more than a little arcane chicanery,I hope all these clowns end up on the dole where they can consider cutting their personal CO2 emissions to their heart's content.

Hang on a minute there, LG - I smoke a pack a day and proclaim that I love life and have every intention of living to a ripe old age...are you calling me a clown?

CB

Edited December 7, 2009 by Captain_Bobski

[laserguy]

Hang on a minute there, LG - I smoke a pack a day and proclaim that I love life and have every intention of living to a ripe old age...are you calling me a clown?

CB

I wouldn't take you seriously,that's for sure. Hmm,only one pack a day?.... I can do that before breakfast,but have always felt I'm not long for this world. Still hanging on in there! Perhaps smoking (like carbon dioxide) is good for you!

[Gray-Wolf]

I wouldn't take you seriously,that's for sure. Hmm,only one pack a day?.... I can do that before breakfast,but have always felt I'm not long for this world. Still hanging on in there! Perhaps smoking (like carbon dioxide) is good for you!

Now what was that Woody Allen film with the orgasmatron???

[PersianPaladin]

http://rawstory.com/...s-saudi-arabia/

I don't like Mr. Al-Sabban.

Edited December 7, 2009 by PersianPaladin

[Admiral_Bobski]

This may take a while because I'm writing this as I read through!

I'm doing a search for the word "solar" in the text to see what references they make. Here's a list:

1. Page 9 - Even over the past ten years, despite a decrease in solar forcing, the trend continues to be one of warming. This makes the assumption that solar effects are near-instantaneous (or at least not lagged by more than a year or two). There's plenty of evidence that this is not the case, and that solar lags can occur over far larger timescales.
2. Page 13 - Every year this century (2001-2008) has been among the top 10 warmest years since instrumental records began, despite solar irradiance being relatively weak over the past few years. Same as above, but with the added point that if temperatures stagnate at a high level then you would expect the temperatures during those stagnant years to be among the top.
3. Page 13 - At the same time [2008], solar output was also at its lowest level of the satellite era, another temporary cooling influence. Once again, same as the previous two points.
4. Page 14 - Lean and Rind (2008) analyzed the role of natural factors (e. g., solar variability, volcanoes) versus human influences on temperatures since 1889. They found that the sun contributed only about 10% of surface warming in the last century and a negligible amount in the last quarter century, less than in earlier assessments. I will come back to this one another time (I have included it here so as to prove I'm not cherry-picking references!). I do recall that Lean's solar reconstructions have become odder- and odder-looking (to me mind) over the years. I shall return to this point once I've done some checking...
5. Page 15 - Most of these short-term variations are due to internal oscillations like El Niño Southern Oscillation, solar variability (predominantly the 11-year Schwabe cycle) and volcanic eruptions (which, like Pinatubo in 1991, can cause a cooling lasting a few years). First off, I'm not sure that solar variability technically constitutes an "internal oscillation", but maybe that's just me. I am also unsure about the assertion that the Schwabe cycle is necessarily the predominant one - it is certainly one of the most frequent, but that's a different matter.
6. Page 15 - If one looks at periods of ten years or shorter, such short-term variations can more than outweigh the anthropogenic global warming trend. For example, El Niño events typically come with global-mean temperature changes of up to 0.2 °C over a few years, and the solar cycle with warming or cooling of 0.1 °C over five years (Lean and Rind 2008). However, neither El Niño, nor solar activity or volcanic eruptions make a significant contribution to longer-term climate trends. References Lean and Rind 2008 again. Where is the evidence that solar activity makes no significant contribution to longer-term climate trends? What about the multi-year lags found by numerous scientists?
7. Page 16 - Can solar activity or other natural processes explain global warming? No. The incoming solar radiation has been almost constant over the past 50 years, apart from the well-known 11-year solar cycle (Figure 5). In fact it has slightly decreased over this period. In addition, over the past three years the brightness of the sun has reached an all-time low since the beginning of satellite measurements in the 1970s (Lockwood and Fröhlich 2007, 2008). Once again this ignores lag effects, but it also fails to address - in fact it cleverly glosses over - the fact that incoming solar radiation has been at an all-time high for the past 50 years. Constant, yes, but also unprecedentedly high.
8. Page 51 - briefly reiterates point 6 above.
9. Page 54 - References the paper "Benestad, R.E. & G.A. Schmidt (2009) Solar Trends & Global Warming, Journal of Geophysical Research 114, D14101".

I shall see if I can find a readable version of the Schmidt and Benestad paper later on.

There are no references to "TSI" (Total Solar Irradiance) or to "sunspots", so it would appear that the above is all they have to say on the subject of solar activity. Looks like they didn't include those "forced-out" solar papers after all...

CB

Edited December 7, 2009 by Captain_Bobski

[VillagePlank]

-- snip --

Edited December 7, 2009 by VillagePlank

[PersianPaladin]

I'm personally doubtful that the IPCC spokesman was qualified to comment on the alleged "sophisticated" nature of the email hack. Some are saying it was an internal leak.

[stewfox]

Whats the wind chill factor going to be when the summit ends with that well established bitter Easterly

-23c

Edited December 7, 2009 by stewfox

[Admiral_Bobski]

As a quick follow-up to my previous post, anyone wanting to read the Benestad/Schmidt (2009) paper can find it here: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2009/2009_Benestad_Schmidt.pdf

Rebuttal by Nicola Scafetta can be found here: http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3813

I am just about to get started reading the Benestad/Schmidt paper now - if I'm not back in 5 minutes...just wait longer...

CB

[Solar Cycles]

Whats the wind chill factor going to be when the summit ends with that well established bitter Easterly

-23c

Could be quite comical, watching our saviours of the planet, being stranded in Copenhagen due to severe weather!

Edited December 7, 2009 by Solar Cycles

[rob48]

Exceeding expectations already:

http://www.guardian....ray-danish-text

Disarray.

I like the sound of that.

It should be borne in mind that Jonah Brown went to great lengths to convince all & sundry that Copenhagen was of monumental and far-reaching importance.

I guess its' fate was sealed there and then.

Edited December 8, 2009 by rob48