Fe ny – How China Saved the World

You can read the pathetic accord here. and in PDF form here. It’s an obvious loss of all points.

I hope you don’t miss the Irony in this. Consider how it happened that communist style international wealth redistribution did not come to pass. Sure there is still voluntary payment to the communists “developing nations”, which is absolutely ignorant in the extreme because they produce nothing – including CO2. Sure there are emission targets, but they have no teeth and absolutely no possibility of coming to fruition – and in the PDF form they are completely left blank!! But the absolute irony of the situation is – we were saved from global communism by China.

The reason is clear (because they flat said it), the Chinese didn’t want to cut emissions to a point which hurt their economy. The Chinese fully intended to get us to sign away our manufacturing base, yet wanted nobody to limit their own output. I’m actually surprised Obama didn’t sign it in that configuration. Obama fully believes in Marxist style wealth redistribution after all, despite the fact that it’s never worked anywhere – ever – even a little.

I often joke with friends that the hardest spot on earth to find a true communist is in Eastern China. These are the people who know the difference. They’ve tried it both ways in the last 50 years, (property free communism and wealthy capitalism). One way they starve, the other they get money, products, cars, heat, food, service and light.

It seems now that the China central government had absolutely no intention of reducing emissions, and was intending to simply lie about it – a not uncommon tactic over there. They flat refused to have any kind of monitoring of their actual output, and simultaneously pushed very hard for fake limit structures that would not limit in any way, their own already shrinking economy.

They were wiser than us —- again. I hope the leftists in the Western world are paying attention to something other than Hollywood pornography, NYT or CNN. We were just taught a real life lesson in government by those who know the difference.

So now that we have this settled, let’s do the right thing and start drilling for cheap energy, start building nuke and coal plants. If you believe the disaster scenarios, which is one thing I’m a full scale denier on, we have no choice except to prepare for mitigation. There is no more purpose in attempting to install a fake global wealth redistribution thermostat, connected to nothing except a chosen few pockets. — oh.. well maybe still one purpose.

—————————–

Lord Monkton’s take:

From The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley in Copenhagen – Click here for SPPI original article.

The mountains shall labor, and what will be born? A stupid little mouse. Thanks to hundreds of thousands of US citizens who contacted their elected representatives to protest about the unelected, communistic world government with near-infinite powers of taxation, regulation and intervention that was proposed in early drafts of the Copenhagen Treaty, there is no Copenhagen Treaty. There is not even a Copenhagen Agreement. There is a “Copenhagen Accord”.

ABSURD AND MORE ABSURD

A guest post by request from, Jon Rappoport

—————————-

DECEMBER 18, 2009.  As a reporter, whenever I run into something that sounds, looks, feels like, and adds up to, a non-sequitur, a chunk of absurd illogic, my eyes light up and rays of eager anticipation shoot out of my head.

I’ve got one of those absurdities, as far as I can tell, and I’m chewing on it.  It has to do THE THIRD WORLD and GLOBAL WARMING SOLUTIONS.

I know I’m supposed to assume those two items go hand in hand and are intimately connected.  I’m supposed to assume the tie-ins are obvious.  But I restrain myself from believing as I keep chewing.

So let us begin.

It’s Still Out of Context?

Today the Washington Post gave Michael Mann even more space to waive away problems  with climate gate.  I don’t have time today to finish this post so I could use some help.  You guys can probably work it out better than I anyway.  h/t Boballab – who’s sent several interesting links recently.

.

Below are a few points Michael Mann makes, since we know he’s willing to sell his grandma for a hockey stick, this needs a little fact checking done.  So for this thread, we need to check Michael Mann’s original nature article he referred to.  We need to see how well hide the decline was explained in the paper.  We should look at the TAR report quotes and see how it’s addressed and paste it all in the comments.  I’m sure there are other great items to discuss as well but I’m swamped.  Links and quotes are appreciated.

.

Maybe Michael’s right this time and ‘everything’ was taken out  of context.  Maybe Mike’s right and we’re all wrong.

.

This link at CA is a good place to start.

By Michael E. Mann

Friday, December 18, 2009

I cannot condone some things that colleagues of mine wrote or requested in the e-mails recently stolen from a climate research unit at a British university. But the messages do not undermine the scientific case that human-caused climate change is real.

GreaseMonkey Controls

Thanks to Mr. Pete and Greasemonkey you can now use CA style controls when commenting with Firefox.    Firefox, if you don’t know, is a web browser like internet explorer.  It’s free, open source and better than the other guys.  I haven’t used IE in years except for certain technical issues – created by microsoft.

It looks like image insertion doesn’t work but you can try it here.

Uh oh

You never know what’ they’ll do.

BREAKING NEWS: Sydney Morning Herald reports 11th hour Copenhagen deal forged

RC Wants the Code – No Kidding

So I’m sittin’ there staring at the most unusual thing. A Real Climate post where they are upset that someone (Nicola Scafetta) didn’t get them the code for his paper. Well, clearly we’re not un-supportive of their plight. After all, the data and the code should be released no matter what the result says. I left them a comment to that effect in their thread.

You have my support on his release of code.

I’ve even personally emailed him to release it, to no avail. It will be quite a bit simpler than some of the other code but as you said the 11 and 22 year cycle issue is not obvious.

Lars Kamél

Posted Dec 17, 2009 at 7:19 AM | Permalink | Reply

One of those rejected papers about Siberian temperatures may have been by me. The time is about right. I got it rejected because of nonsense from a reviewer and the editor saw it as an attack on him when I critized the quality of the review. After that, I gave up the idea of ever getting something AGW critical published in a journal.

The boundary issue could have been caught but the rest is not apparent and shouldn’t require you to waste your time divining an algorithm from text. As a fellow non-psychic, I hope you succeed on this front.

At the time this conflict happened in blogland, I wrote to Dr. Scafetta to encourage him to release his code, several times in fact. He refused saying something like – it’s too simple to worry about. At RC they make this point:

Gavin thinks it’s getting old

The Copenhagen Kids Playing in Global Warming - Canada.com h/t Reader Mark

In reply to a commenter at Surreal Climate,WRT the Russian accusation that CRU cooked the books.

[Response: Well, journalism is in trouble in Russia too... The relevant figure from the IEA report is here which show the difference between the their 'all station' index and the HadCRU index for Russia as a whole. Since there was no check for inhomogeneities or jumps in the IEA index, it doesn't stand up to much scrutiny, but even if it were fine, the differences in the 20th C trend are small. The whole 'someone made adjustments/screened stations therefore fraud!' line of argument is getting very old. - gavin]

The Simple Mind

Protesters in the street, the most leftist leader in US history, every nation against the US, every freedom taken, the pretend rationale.

This is the revolution. As in assmajinidad, listen to the words, not what you hope they are.

Eyes wide shut.

———

Russia Accuses CRU of Tampering

If this is true, It’s true, and it’s huge. Today another example of CRU having their foot on the scale, Russian papers are reporting that the Russian surface station data was sorted by CRU to use the highest warming stations only.

The article is linked here:

Russia affected by Climategate

A discussion of the November 2009 Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, referred to by some sources as “Climategate,” continues against the backdrop of the abortive UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen (COP15) discussing alternative agreements to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol that aimed to combat global warming.

The incident involved an e-mail server used by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich, East England. Unknown persons stole and anonymously disseminated thousands of e-mails and other documents dealing with the global-warming issue made over the course of 13 years.

Controversy arose after various allegations were made including that climate scientists colluded to withhold scientific evidence and manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is.

Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

Commuhagen

Police Beat Back Massed Climate Protesters

Protests at Commuhagen are continuing, it’s a bit confusing who’s protesting and why but this article clears it all up.

Things that make you go HMM …

A guest post from Ryan O.  This post discusses some of our concerns about the global temperature data. I hope to continue this or Ryan can down the road. Ryan is took a brute force approach to looking at pre-homogenization trends of GHCN with a simple script.  I think you’ll find the results interesting.

———————-

So lately, a lot of people have been musing about the accuracy of the temperature indices.  One of the oft-repeated things is that three independent indices (CRU, GISS, NOAA) all yield similar results.  This is presented as confirmation that they cannot be that far off.

Of course, the world is not so simple.  All three indices depend in a large part on GHCN. They are not independent.  If there is something wrong with GHCN, it will carry through to all three indices. The “raw” data for GHCN consists of 13,472 stations.  You can download it here: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v2/v2.mean.Z Unpack using WinZip or similar (I use 7-Zip since it’s free), import into Excel to be able to split the year from the station identifier, and save as a tab-delimited file.  At the end of this, I will provide a script that will read that tab-delimited file into R.

Of those 13,472 stations in GHCN, some go back as far as 1701.  I arbitrarily selected 1900 as a cutoff date.  You are, of course, free to select other dates.  I then wanted to see what the data looked like.  To do this, I simply calculated anomalies using the period of 1900-2009, averaged, and also plotted the station density.  That yields this graphic:

Swiss Homogenization

A guest post by email from a Swiss Slovak reader. I’ve not verified it but it seems to be in line with what we find elsewhere in the global temperature record.

Juraj V

Yesterday I read an article about Alpine glaciers melting even faster
in 40ties than today, while “temperatures were lower then” and less
cloudy sky was blamed.

http://www.ethlife.ethz.ch/archive_articles/091214_gletscherschwund_su/index_EN

I made a chart showing ratio of melting, stationary and advancing
Swiss glaciers vs AMO already some time ago:

http://www.letka13.sk/~jurinko/swiss_glaciers_vs_AMO.gif

Today I asked the Swiss glacier Institute for precip and temperature
data and they linked me to Swiss meteo web.
I downloaded temp history of their main stations, which contained raw
and homogenized temperature charts.

Uh Oh – Climategate just took the next step

No time to blog right now, check this out at WUWT. It looks like the DOE didn’t get the exhaustive review from the AP. All documents must be preserved.

DOE sends a “litigation hold notice” regarding CRU to employees – asking to “preserve documents”

Fascinating – No ice in 5 years

Fascinating.  The Goricle – moving the goal posts.  h/t Ryan O.

When you read this, keep in mind that we have photos of US subs surfacing at the north pole in the summer. I’d bet the Gore …. inator (or whatever), his family fortune against mine hehe, that we will see nothing but ice at the pole for 5 years. Reporters don’t really do numbers so what the heck.

COPENHAGEN – New computer modeling suggests the Arctic Ocean may be nearly ice-free in the summertime as early as 2014, Al Gore said Monday at the U.N. climate conference. This new projection, following several years of dramatic retreat by polar sea ice, suggests that the ice cap may nearly vanish in the summer much sooner than the year 2030, as was forecast by a U.S. government agency eight months ago.

One U.S. government scientist Monday questioned the new prediction as too severe, but other researchers previously have projected a quicker end than 2030 to the Arctic summer ice cap.

“It is hard to capture the astonishment that the experts in the science of ice felt when they saw this,” said former U.S. Vice President Gore, who joined Scandinavian officials and scientists to brief journalists and delegates. It was Gore’s first appearance at the two-week conference.

———

I’ve got to say, my own astonishment is somewhat subdued. After all, we see climategate scientists exaggerating facts for a living, why wouldn’t sea ice scientists do the same? Do they get less money? Do they have different incentives? Whatever.

Andy Revkin Leaving the Times

Andrew C. Revkin, science reporter for the New York Times, will step down from his staff reporting position next Monday and join the faculty at Pace University. Revkin took a buyout from the Times as part of the paper’s latest round of budget cuts. (Flickr/Steven David)

MANHATTAN — New York Times science reporter Andrew Revkin, who pens the popular DOT Earth blog, is leaving journalism and getting back into the classroom.