Cancun sun speeds decay of global warming charade

[Shady]

already covered... China is building new more efficient coal power plants

I'll ask again. And how much C02 will be emitted from these 500+ coal power plants?

Anyways, I'm glad you admit to clean coal technology. Many environmentalists/alarmists in North America pretend that clean coal technology doesn't exists. In many cases, several of the individuals and groups you like to cite, are strongly against clean coal technology.

[TimG]

Wegman revelations and the ties between McIntyre/Wegman/Barton - hey?

ROTFL. Can't wait for DeepClimate to reveal connections between McIntyre and the Bilderbergers and the Illuminati.... I heard he thinks Wegman is mastermind behind 9/11 as well. You are a truly unhinged person if you take such nonsense seriously. Edited December 7, 2010 by TimG

[waldo]

I'll ask again. And how much C02 will be emitted from these 500+ coal power plants?

Anyways, I'm glad you admit to clean coal technology. Many environmentalists/alarmists in North America pretend that clean coal technology doesn't exists. In many cases, several of the individuals and groups you like to cite, are strongly against clean coal technology.

don't know Mr. Wizard... show your numbers and they can be a testament to China's emission levels and a recognition on how China is managing it's (voluntary) obligations/commitments for emission reduction in the face of rapid industrialization balanced against, again, the massive outsourcing of emissions its receives from other western industrialized nations. Is there a particular reason you insist in ignoring the outsourcing aspect?

[waldo]

ROTFL. Can't wait for DeepClimate to reveal connections between McIntre and the Builderburgers and the Illuminati.... I heard he thinks McIntyre is mastermind behind 9/11. You are a truly unhinged person if you take such nonsense seriously.

wheee! I see you're perfect lapper mode! The methodical work being done by Mashey/Deep Climate to lay waste to one of the cornerstones of McIntyre's neverending audit - the Wegman Report... is a beauty playing out as we speak. I expect it won't be long before the report is withdrawn from the U.S. Congress; notwithstanding what will happen to Wegman and the several doctorate students whose work is, similarly, under going scrutiny. What you can't deny is the blatant copy of M&M... not a replication... an outright copy, one with the direct hand of McIntyre guiding Wegman. Once the boys settle in on the actual manipulation done by M&M in their massively trumped up denial POS, McIntyre's known charade will permeate on up into the mainstream. Poor Steve... there goes that 'Order of Canada'

[TimG]

The methodical work being done by Mashey/Deep Climate to lay waste to one of the cornerstones of McIntyre's neverending audit

Are you really that dumb? The only claim that DC has is Wegman did not properly cite some background material. It is irrelevent noise since we are talking about a congressional report produced on a tight schedule rather than an academic paper.

What you can't deny is the blatant copy of M&M... not a replication... an outright copy, one with the direct hand of McIntyre guiding Wegman.

Wegman was tasked with evaluating M&M. He can to the conclusion that M&M were right. What else would anyone have done is his position?

[Shady]

ROTFL. Can't wait for DeepClimate to reveal connections between McIntyre and the Bilderbergers and the Illuminati

Don't forget about the Greys. They're involved as well!

don't know Mr. Wizard... show your numbers and they can be a testament to China's emission levels and a recognition on how China is managing it's (voluntary) obligations/commitments for emission reduction

If it's voluntary, why do you care that they signed on to Copenhagen? After all, a non-signatory could also reduce it's emissions. And do you think China's efforts has to do with so-called climate change, or their increasingly poor air quality that effects its citizens?

again, the massive outsourcing of emissions its receives from other western industrialized nations. Is there a particular reason you insist in ignoring the outsourcing aspect?

With or without outsourcing of emissions, China is still the number one C02 emitter. And that will grow exponentially over the next several years. Have their emissions gone up or down? I think you know the answer. And will their emissions go up or down? I think you know the answer as well.

But I'll ask again, do you support clean coal technology? Or just when China's involved?

[waldo]

Are you really that dumb? The only claim that DC has is Wegman did not properly cite some background material. It is irrelevent noise since we are talking about a congressional report produced on a tight schedule rather than an academic paper.

the overt plagiarism is undeniable... the complete lack of methodology in presuming to replicate M&M is being shown clear. The 'tight schedule' was artificial... manipulated by Barton for political purpose. This is basic - you really should get out from under, uhhh... your oft stated 'group think' mindset!

Wegman was tasked with evaluating M&M. He can to the conclusion that M&M were right. What else would anyone have done is his position?

and clearly... your same question - are you really that dumb? A conclusion realized by simply copying... yes copying... again, not a replication - an overt copy. You ask what Wegman could have done - well, he could have done a responsible job in actually presenting a legitimate analysis and proper replication... that's what he could/should have done. Along with ditching that ridiculous social-science crapola that was added in. That supposed conclusion you speak of - that conclusion is no longer sound given the revelations uncovered to-date. Once the actual indepth analysis of the M&M methodology is performed/completed, we'll see exactly how well it stands up. Initial revelations are beginning to suggest the M&M charade will level the trumped up PCA concern for the trivial/insignificant aspect it is. Stay tuned - hey?

[waldo]

If it's voluntary, why do you care that they signed on to Copenhagen? After all, a non-signatory could also reduce it's emissions. And do you think China's efforts has to do with so-called climate change, or their increasingly poor air quality that effects its citizens?

uhhh... are you being purposely obtuse? China's previous expressed commitments are ones they've made on their own initiative, as they weren't subject to mandatory commitments - duh! You can presume to challenge China for your own purposes - China's actions in delivering deployed/planned sustainable alternatives are world-leading... it's active program to replace outdated inefficient coal plants is recognized. If they don't meet the scrutiny of the Professor, you should take it up with someone who cares. Perhaps you could advise how China should respond to it's rapid industrialization needs... wait now... are you one the 'forbidders' you referred to earlier? You could also really make your case (whatever it actually is???) by comparing/contrasting China's initiatives to other countries... you could do that - hey Professor?

[Oleg Bach]

Why would supposed intelligent people go to Mexico other failed latin American states to hang out and talk about international laws to be applied to counter climate change - The stupid Mexicans can not even control the soaring murder rate and out right slaughter of tourists and their own sad citizens.

They went to Cancun to get drunk and laid...what else could it be - that is all that shit hole is good for.

[wyly]

so I read today in Cancun China is willing to meet some sort reduction guideline, didn't have time to read the article completely but some people appear to think it's a breakthrough...a smart move politically if true, it puts all the pressure and responsibility on India and the US...

[Shady]

uhhh... are you being purposely obtuse? China's previous expressed commitments are ones they've made on their own initiative, as they weren't subject to mandatory commitments - duh! You can presume to challenge China for your own purposes - China's actions in delivering deployed/planned sustainable alternatives are world-leading... it's active program to replace outdated inefficient coal plants is recognized. If they don't meet the scrutiny of the Professor, you should take it up with someone who cares. Perhaps you could advise how China should respond to it's rapid industrialization needs... wait now... are you one the 'forbidders' you referred to earlier? You could also really make your case (whatever it actually is???) by comparing/contrasting China's initiatives to other countries... you could do that - hey Professor?

Does that mean you're a supporter of clean coal? Or just for China?

[TimG]

the overt plagiarism is undeniable.

Pilagerism which Bradley is also guilty of. In any case, we talking about background material in a congressional report produced under tight deadlines. The normal rules for academia do not apply and even if Wegman gets is knuckles wrapped by his university it has no relevence when it comes to merit of the report since the tight deadlines make such lapses excusable.

the A conclusion realized by simply copying... yes copying... again, not a replication - an overt copy.

Again - so what? He read the M&M explaination. Agree with it and used it.

Once the actual indepth analysis of the M&M methodology is performed/completed, we'll see exactly how well it stands up.

IOW, you are acknowledging that W&A does not actually rebut the M&M and that the IPCC was wrong to claim it did.

[Oleg Bach]

America will never sign on - to sign on would mean that it would be the begining of the end for a super power...America believes that all others should be poor and keep the world clean and only they should dirty the world and stay rich.

[TimG]

Does that mean you're a supporter of clean coal? Or just for China?

He is just a typical self hating lefty that wants to destroy the society that raised him.

[Shady]

He is just a typical self hating lefty that wants to destroy the society that raised him.

Apparently so. He still won't answer the question of whether or not he supports clean coal. It sounds like he supports it, which I'm pleased to hear.

[waldo]

He is just a typical self hating lefty that wants to destroy the society that raised him.

I see you're really smarting - hey? Would you like me to take it easier on you... would you like a handicap - say, one other than having a hanger-on like the Professor?

[Oleg Bach]

In order to be a super power you must pollute. America pollutes - and Canada like a sucky little brother agrees with America - because they need the protection of a super power - YET - Canada allowes unbridled immigration which is akin to an invasion.

[Michael Hardner]

Economics and science both must be considered.

One leads to the other but they are still separate discussions, perhaps parts of a greater discussion.

[Oleg Bach]

One leads to the other but they are still separate discussions, perhaps parts of a greater discussion.

First you do the science. Once that is done- you do the economic - and if the economic defys science and destroys nature - then it is best to be poor and alive than rich and dead..that's called doing the logic.

[Shady]

I see you're really smarting - hey? Would you like me to take it easier on you... would you like a handicap - say, one other than having a hanger-on like the Professor?

Waldo. Are you a supporter of clean coal?

[waldo]

Pilagerism which Bradley is also guilty of. In any case, we talking about background material in a congressional report produced under tight deadlines. The normal rules for academia do not apply and even if Wegman gets is knuckles wrapped by his university it has no relevence when it comes to merit of the report since the tight deadlines make such lapses excusable.

Again - so what? He read the M&M explaination. Agree with it and used it.

IOW, you are acknowledging that W&A does not actually rebut the M&M and that the IPCC was wrong to claim it did.

oh pleeease! Stop with the "tight deadlines"... you're killing me!

and, nice try.. as published, Wahl & Ammann most certainly refute M&M (why you bother to tangentially extend to lasso the IPCC is telling - hey?). What I'm talking about, specifically, is the forced data manipulation/isolation for obvious agenda driven purpose... that's the shoe that will drop. I trust you'll be one of the lappers consoling M&M right to the end.

[Shady]

oh pleeease! Stop with the "tight deadlines"... you're killing me!

and, nice try.. as published, Wahl & Ammann most certainly refute M&M (why you bother to tangentially extend to lasso the IPCC is telling - hey?). What I'm talking about, specifically, is the forced data manipulation/isolation for obvious agenda driven purpose... that's the shoe that will drop. I trust you'll be one of the lappers consoling M&M right to the end.

Are you a supporter of clean coal?

[waldo]

so I read today in Cancun China is willing to meet some sort reduction guideline, didn't have time to read the article completely but some people appear to think it's a breakthrough...a smart move politically if true, it puts all the pressure and responsibility on India and the US...

yes, it is excellent news, wyly - of course, none of the China bashers around here will be pleased!

[Shady]

yes, it is excellent news, wyly - of course, none of the China bashers around here will be pleased!

Are you a supporter of clean coal?

[TimG]

yes, it is excellent news, wyly - of course, none of the China bashers around here will be pleased!

There is nothing new on the table:

China's chief negotiator Xie Zenhua also made some encouraging statements Monday as well, noting that developing countries should also formalize their voluntary commitments in an agreement. On the transparency question, he said, "We think that the principles should respect nation sovereignty, they should be non-intrusive and non-punitive, and they need to build trust." He was also bullish on meeting his own country's goals, with or without a formal deal. "Our voluntarily reduction commitments will be honored and implemented," he said.

Without binding targets on China and India with an effective enforcment mechanism there can be no deal. Edited December 7, 2010 by TimG