waldo Posted February 1, 2010 Report Posted February 1, 2010 The ICO said it felt an offence has been committed but it could not lay charges because of a 6 month limitation in the law. However, it is possible to lay charges for a conspirasy to break the law and that is apparently done in the UK quite often. Bottom is there is no debate: an offense was committed in the view of the ICO and denying is pointless. You so ignorant of the facts it is frightening. Why don't take the time to learn when the requests were sent and why. If you did you will find that sceptics did absolutely nothing unreasonable and the batch requests was only sent was because UEA kept offering bogus excuses for refusing to release the data and the requests were necessary to prove that the excuses were bogus. If UAE has released the material as it was legally obligied to there would have been no flood. so again - what charges? No charges! You were wrong in stating as such... you might presume, you might wish... but there are no current charges. But what's your point? You've already chalked it up to "no charges" given the UK government's complicity in your conspiracy. you keep throwing out the ignorant label and you keep being shown for your own ignorance. Why ignore the fact UEA had contractual obligations that prevented the release of certain data... so, of course, the McIntyre inspired game was to flood UEA with FOI requests each one attempting to explicitly figure out which stations UEA were holding to their contractual obligations. You also can't make the blanket statement as to legal obligations... there are very clear and precise entitlements at play. Not every Tom, Dick and McIntyre is actually entitled to access. Don't waste either of our times presuming to get ahead of the actual investigation..... as much as I'd (not) like to play further, my work (play) is done now and it's time to go home Quote
bloodyminded Posted February 1, 2010 Report Posted February 1, 2010 (edited) No it is not. Anyone who thinks it is has more in commmon with a creationist than a scientist. But I wasn't claiming that I thought the Creationists had a valid argument. I'm sure you're aware that virtually everyone who thinks so inhabits the Right wing of the political spectrum. Edited February 1, 2010 by bloodyminded Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
waldo Posted February 1, 2010 Report Posted February 1, 2010 like I asked Bush_Cheney previously (asked but not answered)... who in the Obama administration is actually our new Environment Minister? U.S. pledges 17 percent emissions reduction by 2020... in a stealth weekend announcement, Conservative Jim Prentice stated that Canada would sheepishly line up behind it's big brother and match the emission target - 17 per cent from 2005 levels by 2020. Meanwhile, the progressive EU reaffirmed it's previous emission target commitment - 20 per cent on 1990 levels by 2020 Quote
Keepitsimple Posted February 1, 2010 Author Report Posted February 1, 2010 (edited) like I asked Bush_Cheney previously (asked but not answered)... who in the Obama administration is actually our new Environment Minister? U.S. pledges 17 percent emissions reduction by 2020... in a stealth weekend announcement, Conservative Jim Prentice stated that Canada would sheepishly line up behind it's big brother and match the emission target - 17 per cent from 2005 levels by 2020. Meanwhile, the progressive EU reaffirmed it's previous emission target commitment - 20 per cent on 1990 levels by 2020 The "progressive" EU-27 is currently about 10% below 1990 levels.......so they've really only committed to a 10% decrease by 2020......and this is where the rubber meets the road. The EU conveniently grouped all their countries together and chose the date of 1990 to take advantage of the economic collapse of the Soviet Bloc - and we all know about the UK's dash for gas. Now they have to start making tough choices. To see what a challenge they have, take a look at page 14 of the linked document. With "existing measures" leading up to 2020, the EU27 will see their emissions rise by about 3 or 4%. With "additional measures" they will see their emissions drop by only another 4 or 5% - hardly what one would consider "progressive". So......the trickery of Kyoto has played itself out and the hard wortk now begins. Put in proper perspective, North America's 17% is pretty aggressive. Link: http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/eea_report_2009_9/ghg-trends-and-projections-2009-summary.pdf Edited February 1, 2010 by Keepitsimple Quote Back to Basics
waldo Posted February 1, 2010 Report Posted February 1, 2010 The "progressive" EU-27 is currently about 10% below 1990 levels.......so they've really only committed to a 10% decrease by 2020......and this is where the rubber meets the road. The EU conveniently grouped all their countries together and chose the date of 1990 to take advantage of the economic collapse of the Soviet Bloc - and we all know about the UK's dash for gas. Now they have to start making tough choices. To see what a challenge they have, take a look at page 14 of the linked document. With "existing measures" leading up to 2020, the EU27 will see their emissions rise by about 3 or 4%. With "additional measures" they will see their emissions drop by only another 4 or 5% - hardly what one would consider "progressive". So......the trickery of Kyoto has played itself out and the hard wortk now begins. Put in proper perspective, North America's 17% is pretty aggressive. Link: http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/eea_report_2009_9/ghg-trends-and-projections-2009-summary.pdf as much as you seem to thrive on presumptions of devious action/intent, that 1990 base year reference associates to benchmark 1990 emission levels accepted by member parties of UNFCCC... effectively, the values of "global warming potential" calculated for the IPCC SAR Report (as used to convert various GHG emissions into comparable CO2 equivalents). interesting that you would like to give Canada and the U.S. credit for actually doing nothing over the last years... in spite of Canada signing on as a Kyoto signatory. In any case, that 17% figure is actually 3% lower than the 20% reduction figure the Harper Conservatives have been talking about for the last 3 years. How typical that Harper Conservative inaction would result in them now coming forward with an even further reduced 2020 emission target. I had actually hoped you would bite at the stealthy announcement I pointed out... where Harper Conservatives have been going out of their way these last weeks to present a facade of an active working government in attempts to downplay the perogy punch... and yet, here they bury this emissions target announcement over a weekend - apparently, the PMO must think that lining up lock-step with the U.S. announcement might take on negative perceptions... either that, or they're actually worried about being seen as responding to AGW climate change itself (as suspect a response, as it is) - ya think! Quote
waldo Posted February 1, 2010 Report Posted February 1, 2010 oh my... and not even from a tabloid rag! World's glaciers continue to melt at historic rates Glaciers across the globe are continuing to melt so fast that many will disappear by the middle of this century, the World Glacier Monitoring Service (WGMS) said today.. . However the director of the WGMS, Professor Wilfried Haeberli, said the latest global results indicated most glaciers were continuing to melt at historically high rates. "The melting goes on," said Haeberli. "It's less extreme than in years [immediately before] but what's really important is the trend of 10 years or so, and that shows an unbroken acceleration in melting." Haeberli also repeated his warning that many glaciers are set to disappear in the next few decades, due to an expected continuation in the rise of global average temperatures. The most vulnerable glaciers were those in lower mountain ranges like the Alps and the Pyrenees in Europe, in Africa, parts of the Andes in South and Central America, and the Rockies in North America, said Haeberli. "We are on the path of the highest scenario [of global warming] in reality, but if you take a medium scenario in the Alps about 70% will be gone by the middle of the century, and mountain ranges like the Pyrenees may be completely ice-free." oh lordy... can someone pleeeese find a tabloid rag story with trivial and inconsequential reference to IPCC AR4... something, anything to bury this obvious fabricated Guardian article that presumes to present the most recent global scientific based results from the World Glacier Monitoring Service Quote
Riverwind Posted February 1, 2010 Report Posted February 1, 2010 (edited) that 1990 base year reference associates to benchmark 1990 emission levels accepted by member parties of UNFCCCEmissions targets are political posturing designed to appeal hypocritical and naive idiots that fill the environmental movement. They will only result in one of 3 things:1) They will be ignored. 2) They will be met by buying bogus carbon credits which do nothing to reduce *global* emissions. 3) They will be met by driving the economy into another great depression. Meaningful CO2 emissions on a global scale is a technically impossible to today. All of the politicians making the promises expect 1) to occur. Many of the environmentalists who are really 'social justice advocates' hope for 2) because they carbon credits as a great way to steal money from the evil middle class in rich countries and redistribute it to the 3rd world. Edited February 1, 2010 by Riverwind Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
Keepitsimple Posted February 1, 2010 Author Report Posted February 1, 2010 as much as you seem to thrive on presumptions of devious action/intent, that 1990 base year reference associates to benchmark 1990 emission levels accepted by member parties of UNFCCC... effectively, the values of "global warming potential" calculated for the IPCC SAR Report (as used to convert various GHG emissions into comparable CO2 equivalents). Well now let me see......Kyoto was actually adopted on December 11th, 1997 and used data from the 1995 SAR. So why would they use a benchmark year 5 years earlier? Why not 1991 or 92 or 93 or 94. Give yourself a shake Waldo....it was clearly because the Soviet Empire collapsed in 1991. Not only did it help the "progressive" EU27 meet their Kyoto targets (mostly) but Russia stood to make out quite nicely thank you because of all of their "reductions" and resulting credits. Quote Back to Basics
Riverwind Posted February 1, 2010 Report Posted February 1, 2010 Russia stood to make out quite nicely thank you because of all of their "reductions" and resulting credits.The Kyoto deal would have never gone into force if it did not provide Russia with such a huge money making opportunity. I really despair for the future of the country when such a large segment of the population can't seem to figure out that kyoto-style agreements are a scam that will simply transfer wealth and jobs from Canada to countries that are not dumb enough to commit to emission reductions. Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
waldo Posted February 1, 2010 Report Posted February 1, 2010 as much as you seem to thrive on presumptions of devious action/intent, that 1990 base year reference associates to benchmark 1990 emission levels accepted by member parties of UNFCCC... effectively, the values of "global warming potential" calculated for the IPCC SAR Report (as used to convert various GHG emissions into comparable CO2 equivalents). Well now let me see......Kyoto was actually adopted on December 11th, 1997 and used data from the 1995 SAR. So why would they use a benchmark year 5 years earlier? Why not 1991 or 92 or 93 or 94. Give yourself a shake Waldo....it was clearly because the Soviet Empire collapsed in 1991. Not only did it help the "progressive" EU27 meet their Kyoto targets (mostly) but Russia stood to make out quite nicely thank you because of all of their "reductions" and resulting credits. no, sorry... you'll need to lower your devious action/intent radar. As I said, within the Kyoto Protocol, the 1990 base reference was used... was selected... in relation to the "global warming potentials (GWPs)" developed within the SAR report". Kyoto Protocol:The benchmark 1990 emission levels were accepted by the Conference of the Parties of UNFCCC (decision 2/CP.3) [2] were the values of "global warming potential" calculated for the IPCC Second Assessment Report. These figures are used for converting the various greenhouse gas emissions into comparable CO2 equivalents when computing overall sources and sinks. here's a thought, Simple... why don't you go find the SAR GWPs and prove the above quote wrong - you know, actually substantiate your stated devious action/intent. Quote
waldo Posted February 1, 2010 Report Posted February 1, 2010 The Kyoto deal would have never gone into force if it did not provide Russia with such a huge money making opportunity. I really despair for the future of the country when such a large segment of the population can't seem to figure out that kyoto-style agreements are a scam that will simply transfer wealth and jobs from Canada to countries that are not dumb enough to commit to emission reductions. why do you foresee/project a repeat of the Kyoto Protocol... is that your takeaway from Copenhagen? Or do you simply despair for self-preservation needs? Quote
Riverwind Posted February 2, 2010 Report Posted February 2, 2010 (edited) why do you foresee/project a repeat of the Kyoto Protocol... is that your takeaway from Copenhagen?Prentice just signed on to promise will not be met no matter how much the AGW crowd complains. The only question what governments will do in order to pretend to meet those promies and how jobs will be lost as a result. Edited February 2, 2010 by Riverwind Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
waldo Posted February 2, 2010 Report Posted February 2, 2010 Waldo....you seem to be the only one on this board (except for mini-me Wyly) who will not accept any criticism directed at the IPCC. Regardless of one's position on AGW, it has become painfully obvious for some time that the IPCC is in need of major reform. AR7 was only the tip of the iceberg. Canada's leading IPCC contributor - Andrew Weaver - has now formally gone on record saying as such. This in no way relegates all IPCC science as "bad" science. It simply reinforces the fact that Climate Change science is too important to be kept in the hands of an advocacy group, headed by a corrupt chairman, utilizing questionable reporting procedures. Open your eyes and ears Waldo - and join the debate. notwithstanding the oft demonstrated clear agenda of the National Post's Lorne Gunter/Terence Corcoran, as is the repeated pattern, Simple... your quick off the mark to link to anything your scurrying about finds, has - once again - blown up on you. A couple of links as written directly by Andrew Weaver - here: IPCC findings sound in face of all controversy & here: Prof clarifies position on climate panel. For good measure, I'm sure you'd actually like to read where University of Victoria's Andrew Weaver says climate changing faster than expected Quote
Riverwind Posted February 2, 2010 Report Posted February 2, 2010 waldo, Nobody is buying your spin doctoring efforts any more and even long time AGW promoters like the Financial Times are calling for a indepedent audit of IPCC reports. It closed with this comment: The IPCC must learn from this gaffe. Not only is its own credibility at stake, but possibly the cause of climate science also. Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
waldo Posted February 2, 2010 Report Posted February 2, 2010 waldo,Nobody is buying your spin doctoring efforts any more buddy, doctoring your/Simple spin is my pleasure... not surprising to see you actually trolling Inhofe's blog - have you no shame! not sure why you continue to attempt to make something over the trivial and inconsequential reference to a single paragraph subgroup WG2 report reference concerning (Himalayan) glacier retreat... that never made it into the summary Synthesis report, that never made it into the Summary for Policymakers report & that was never positioned as a significant IPCC 'position/claim'. As I continue to say, you can't challenge anything on the actual science, so you accept whatever you can latch onto in your denier groupthink efforts to continue to manufacture and spread doubt and uncertainty. Same challenge as before... although you'll ignore it, it will continue to highlight your absence of scientific challenge. Again, you've been provided links to: - the IPCC response statement that detailed what the IPCC Synthesis report stated concerning glacier retreat and the current IPCC position - challenge it! - a recent AGU presentation that presented the most current and representative accounting of the state of the Himalayan glaciers - challenge it! - the most recent complete yearly update from the WGMS that speaks to the current state of world-wide glacier retreat - World's glaciers continue to melt at historic rates - challenge it! Quote
Riverwind Posted February 2, 2010 Report Posted February 2, 2010 (edited) not sure why you continue to attempt to make something over the trivial and inconsequential reference to a single paragraph subgroup WG2 report reference concerning (Himalayan) glacier retreatIt is about trust. The IPCC is asking that people trust that its processes produced an scientifically accurate and unbiased report. This failure is one among many that show that the IPCC processes do not work and that its reports are slanted toward exaggerating the effect of warming.It really does not make a difference if you think it is inconsequential and that you are willing to trust the IPCC anyways. The fact is a growing number of people are looking at these failures and coming to the same conclusion as me: the IPCC is not a trustworthy organization. Edited February 2, 2010 by Riverwind Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
Keepitsimple Posted February 2, 2010 Author Report Posted February 2, 2010 (edited) notwithstanding the oft demonstrated clear agenda of the National Post's Lorne Gunter/Terence Corcoran, as is the repeated pattern, Simple... your quick off the mark to link to anything your scurrying about finds, has - once again - blown up on you. A couple of links as written directly by Andrew Weaver - here: IPCC findings sound in face of all controversy & here: Prof clarifies position on climate panel. For good measure, I'm sure you'd actually like to read where University of Victoria's Andrew Weaver says climate changing faster than expected The Canwest article that I previously posted was by Richard Foot and included actual quotes from Andrew Weaver......are you suggesting that they were all made up? It's not surprising that Dr. Weaver has issued a "clarification" - one that flies in the face or his original statements. There is no doubt that incredible pressure was placed on him as the IPCC circle their wagons - it appears that much of the article was standard boiler-plate provided to him by the IPCC to toe the party line. There is a lot of money and power at stake as the IPCC circles the drain. These are Dr. Weaver's actual quotes: Andrew Weaver, a climatologist at the University of Victoria, says the leadership of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has allowed it to advocate for action on global warming, rather than serve simply as a neutral science advisory body."There's been some dangerous crossing of that line," said Dr. Weaver yesterday, echoing the published sentiments of other leading climate scientists in the United States and Europe this week. "Some might argue we need a change in some of the upper leadership of the IPCC, who are perceived as becoming advocates," he told Canwest News Service. "I think that is a very legitimate question." Dr. Weaver also says the IPCC has become too large and unwieldy. He says its periodic reports, such as the 3,000 page, 2007 report that won the Nobel Prize, are eating up valuable academic resources and driving scientists to produce work on tight, artificial deadlines, at the expense of other, longer-term inquiries that are equally important to understanding climate change. "The problem we have is that the IPCC process has taken on a life of its own," says Dr. Weaver, a climate-modelling physicist who co-authored chapters in the past three IPCC reports. "I think the IPCC needs a fundamental shift." Edited February 2, 2010 by Keepitsimple Quote Back to Basics
waldo Posted February 2, 2010 Report Posted February 2, 2010 It is about trust. The IPCC is asking that people trust that its processes produced an scientifically accurate and unbiased report. This failure is one among many that show that the IPCC processes do not work and that its reports are slanted toward exaggerating the effect of warming. It really does not make a difference if you think it is concequential and that you are willing to trust the IPCC anyways. The fact is a growing number of people are looking at these failures and coming to the same conclusion as me: the IPCC is not a trustworthy organization. no - I look at the overall state of AGW climate change balanced against the report... then I laugh at your pathetic attempts to discredit the science by attacking trivial and inconsequential aspects of the report. Your/Simple's latest "concern" that commentary from climbers/mountain guides wasn't peer-reviewed is laughable... let's see... a trivial and inconsequential reference to fewer climbing days given suggestion of reduced mountain ice - that appeared only as a line-item reference in a report table. Within a subgroup report that isn't focused on the physical science basis of climate change... and you/Simple rally the doubt/uncertainty cause... uhhh... because commentary from climbers/mountain guides wasn't peer-reviewed!!! Notwithstanding, you've now been schooled on how that particular type of WG2 subgroup report information (non scientific paper category), subject to published IPCC report principles, is legitimate. But don't let that stop the mainstream publication headlines! Quote
waldo Posted February 2, 2010 Report Posted February 2, 2010 The Canwest article that I previously posted was by Richard Foot and included actual quotes from Andrew Weaver......are you suggesting that they were all made up? It's not surprising that Dr. Weaver has issued a "clarification" - one that flies in the face or his original statements. There is no doubt that incredible pressure was placed on him as the IPCC circle their wagons - it appears that much of the article was standard boiler-plate provided to him by the IPCC to toe the party line. There is a lot of money and power at stake as the IPCC circles the drain. These are Dr. Weaver's actual quotes: where's the problem Simple?... Weaver states your article's statements don't accurately reflect his views. He's offered clarification and reinforced his position. Even without flooding you with his actual clarifying quotes, I'm particularly taken with the one article's headline: "IPCC findings sound in face of all controversy" Obviously this doesn't sit well with you - does it, Simple? Quote
Riverwind Posted February 2, 2010 Report Posted February 2, 2010 (edited) I look at the overall state of AGW climate change balanced against the reportAt what are your sources of information for that? The IPCC report? Greenpeace flyers? Blogs? The only thing that the science tells with any degree of certainty is CO2 will cause the planet to warm. Everything else from the effect on water supplies to hurricaine strength is pure speculation with little scientific support. That is why WG2 had to use all of these dubious sources. If it had limited itself to the peer reviewed literature it would not be able to make the claim that warming is a danger to human society. Edited February 2, 2010 by Riverwind Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
waldo Posted February 2, 2010 Report Posted February 2, 2010 (edited) ... make the claim that warming is a danger to human society. about that 'clear and present danger'... from the just released U.S. Department of Defense's, "Quadrennial Defense Review" Crafting a Strategic Approach to Climate and EnergyClimate change and energy are two key issues that will play a significant role in shaping the future security environment. Although they produce distinct types of challenges, climate change, energy security, and economic stability are inextricably linked. The actions that the Department takes now can prepare us to respond effectively to these challenges in the near term and in the future. Climate change will affect DoD in two broad ways. First, climate change will shape the operating environment, roles, and missions that we undertake. The U.S. Global Change Research Program, composed of 13 federal agencies, reported in 2009 that climate-related changes are already being observed in every region of the world, including the United States and its coastal waters. Among these physical changes are increases in heavy downpours, rising temperature and sea level, rapidly retreating glaciers, thawing permafrost, lengthening growing seasons, lengthening ice-free seasons in the oceans and on lakes and rivers, earlier snowmelt, and alterations in river flows. Assessments conducted by the intelligence community indicate that climate change could have significant geopolitical impacts around the world, contributing to poverty, environmental degradation, and the further weakening of fragile governments. Climate change will contribute to food and water scarcity, will increase the spread of disease, and may spur or exacerbate mass migration. While climate change alone does not cause conflict, it may act as an accelerant of instability or conflict, placing a burden to respond on civilian institutions and militaries around the world. In addition, extreme weather events may lead to increased demands for defense support to civil authorities for humanitarian assistance or disaster response both within the United States and overseas. In some nations, the military is the only institution with the capacity to respond to a large-scale natural disaster. Proactive engagement with these countries can help build their capability to respond to such events. Working closely with relevant U.S. departments and agencies, DoD has undertaken environmental security cooperative initiatives with foreign militaries that represent a nonthreatening way of building trust, sharing best practices on installations management and operations, and developing response capacity. Edited February 2, 2010 by waldo Quote
Keepitsimple Posted February 2, 2010 Author Report Posted February 2, 2010 where's the problem Simple?... Weaver states your article's statements don't accurately reflect his views. He's offered clarification and reinforced his position. Even without flooding you with his actual clarifying quotes, I'm particularly taken with the one article's headline: "IPCC findings sound in face of all controversy" Obviously this doesn't sit well with you - does it, Simple? There is no one so blind as he who will not see. When you buy a car, do you believe everything the salesman tells you? Poor Waldo continues to be duped. You still can't get it through your head that regardless of whether AGW is primarily, largely, modestly, or minutely attributable to human-produced GHG's, the IPCC has devolved into a biased, advocacy group....to some degree or to a large degree.....and with many saying AGW is the "most important issue facing mankind", it behooves us to question and investigate any improprieties, inadequate processes, and reporting procedures. It's time to lift the covers from the secretive process. Wake up Waldo - you act as if the IPCC is made up of angels - they are human and like a government that has been in power far too long, corruption is bound to set in. 20 years with the same people behind the scenes - throngs of special interests jockeying for influence - billions to be made - how can there not be bias and corruption? Quote Back to Basics
Riverwind Posted February 2, 2010 Report Posted February 2, 2010 from the just released U.S. Department of Defense'sAn analyses that means nothing if it relied on the IPCC as a source for the potential impacts of climate change. Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
waldo Posted February 2, 2010 Report Posted February 2, 2010 ... make the claim that warming is a danger to human society. about that 'clear and present danger'... from the just released U.S. Department of Defense's, "Quadrennial Defense Review"An analyses that means nothing if it relied on the IPCC as a source for the potential impacts of climate change. clarification please: given this U.S. Department of Defence's most emphatic reinforcement of the imminent dangers of AGW climate change... of it's strategic position/statement/action towards that end... should I now add the U.S. Department of Defence to the Riverwind conspiracy (circa xxxx - xxxx, vol xxx)? Quote
Riverwind Posted February 2, 2010 Report Posted February 2, 2010 clarification please: given this U.S. Department of Defence's most emphatic reinforcement of the imminent dangers of AGW climate changeThe DOD does not do its own climate research. It relies on sources like the IPCC to tell it what the impacts of climate change will be. If those sources are shown to be unreliable then the DOD conclusions cannot have any merit. This is not because the DOD did anything wrong other than trusting unreliable sources if information. The formal term for this problem is GIGO. Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.