Credit scheme backfired, hiking greenhouse gases, study finds

August 24, 2015
A global scheme meant to keep atmospheric greenhouse gas levels in check instead caused some 600 million tonnes of excess emissi
A global scheme meant to keep atmospheric greenhouse gas levels in check instead caused some 600 million tonnes of excess emissions, researchers said

A global scheme meant to keep atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) levels in check instead caused some 600 million tonnes of excess emissions, researchers said Monday.

They blamed a loophole in the Kyoto Protocol's Joint Implementation (JI) mechanism which allowed countries to earn and sell credits for emissions cuts which were "not real".

Russia and Ukraine were the main offenders, reported authors Lambert Schneider and Anja Kollmuss from the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI).

These findings should serve as a warning to the 195 nations gathering in Paris later this year to forge a global climate treaty, they said.

"Overall, the use of JI may have enabled global GHG emissions to be about 600 million tCO2e (tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent) higher than they would have otherwise been," they wrote in a policy brief published by the SEI.

Such a figure represents most of the total 872 million credits issued by March 2015.

"About three-quarters of JI credits may not represent actual emission reductions" but "bogus carbon offsets", watchdog Carbon Market Watch said in a comment on the research.

The JI mechanism, under the Kyoto Protocol, gave countries credits for incinerating or otherwise "abating" waste gases generated by industry instead of venting them into the atmosphere.

Other countries, which needed to exceed their emissions quotas, could buy these credits to emit the equivalent volume of gas supposedly curbed elsewhere—the goal being a "zero-sum game" of constant global emissions.

But a flaw in the system created a "perverse incentive" for countries to create and incinerate more waste gases to earn more credits, said a study by the same authors, published simultaneously in the journal Nature Climate Change.

This meant excess credits sold on the market, and a net increase in emissions.

The implications for the European Union's Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) the world's biggest carbon market, were "particularly serious", said the SEI brief.

"JI may... have undermined the EU ETS emission reduction target by about 400 million tCO2e.

In Russia alone, four chemical plants issued 28-33 million "excess" credits since 2011, Schneider told AFP by email.

"Most Joint Implementation credits came from Ukraine, followed by Russia," he said.

"Most credits from both Ukraine and Russia are questionable and may not represent actual emission reductions."

Ukraine and Russia accounted for over 90 percent of JI credits issued.

Mistakes may be repeated

The price of the credits has varied from about 10 euros ($11.6) in 2010/11, to a few cents today.

"A key concern for us is that there is considerable risk that the same mistakes may be repeated in the new international climate treaty which is currently under negotiation and will be adopted in December this year in Paris," said Schneider.

Many countries do not want oversight of international credit transfers, and several of the carbon-cutting pledges nations have tabled so far to underpin the new pact, were "not very ambitious".

This could create a scenario in which countries continue to sell credits which did not correspond with actual emissions reductions, Schneider said.

The Kyoto Protocol, adopted in 1997, entered into force in 2005, and bound developed countries to an average five-percent cut in emissions from 1990 levels in the period 2008-2012. The target was largely met.

The United States did not sign up, and the pact excluded developing giants like China and India—now the first- and fourth-biggest polluters.

All the world's nations have undertaken to be party to a new, global pact that will officially replace the Kyoto Protocol from 2020.

Since 2012, the protocol exists in a watered down form known as a "second commitment period", imposing targets only on the 28-member European Union and a dozen other developed nations.

Russia, Japan, Canada and New Zealand have withdrawn from the pact.

Explore further: Kyoto scheme sees billionth tonne of saved CO2

More information: Nature Climate Change, DOI: 10.1038/nclimate2772

Related Stories

Kyoto scheme sees billionth tonne of saved CO2

September 7, 2012

The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), a Kyoto Protocol device to curb greenhouse gases through market forces, has now issued a billion tonnes of carbon credits, the UN climate forum announced on Friday.

Romania to resume trading carbon emission rights

July 14, 2012

Romania has won the right to resume trading its surplus carbon emission rights, almost a year being suspended from doing so under the Kyoto Protocol, Romanian Environment Minister Rovana Plumb has said.

EU on track for Kyoto and 2020 emissions targets

October 24, 2012

The European Union (EU) will go beyond its targets to cut greenhouse gases by 2012 under the UN's Kyoto Protocol and is on course for meeting its goal for 2020, it reported on Wednesday.

EU slams top economies on climate summit targets

August 20, 2015

The EU on Thursday urged India, Indonesia, Brazil and other major economies to immediately submit their emissions reductions targets to help avoid failure at the UN climate summit in Paris later this year.

Recommended for you

Archaeologists discover Incan tomb in Peru

February 16, 2019

Peruvian archaeologists discovered an Incan tomb in the north of the country where an elite member of the pre-Columbian empire was buried, one of the investigators announced Friday.

Where is the universe hiding its missing mass?

February 15, 2019

Astronomers have spent decades looking for something that sounds like it would be hard to miss: about a third of the "normal" matter in the Universe. New results from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory may have helped them ...

What rising seas mean for local economies

February 15, 2019

Impacts from climate change are not always easy to see. But for many local businesses in coastal communities across the United States, the evidence is right outside their doors—or in their parking lots.

The friendly extortioner takes it all

February 15, 2019

Cooperating with other people makes many things easier. However, competition is also a characteristic aspect of our society. In their struggle for contracts and positions, people have to be more successful than their competitors ...

120 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

dogbert
2.4 / 5 (30) Aug 24, 2015
Credit scheme backfired, hiking greenhouse gases, study finds


The scheme did not backfire. It was not compromised and it in fact did precisely what it was intended to do. It redistributed wealth.

Greenhouse gasses were always just a mechanism to redistribute wealth.
Gimp
2.2 / 5 (25) Aug 24, 2015
Don't forget, it also made a bunch of liberals feeling really smug and made Al Gore millions.
denglish
2.7 / 5 (25) Aug 24, 2015
Ah, unintended consequences... the bane of liberal policies.
antigoracle
2.1 / 5 (21) Aug 24, 2015
The AGW Cult.
Saving the world.
Trust them.
denglish
1.7 / 5 (18) Aug 24, 2015
leetennant
4.2 / 5 (21) Aug 24, 2015
As usual, you missed the point. This is about systematic corruption - especially in eastern Europe - and highlights the need for greater international financial regulation as we head toward more stringent global emissions targets.
denglish
1.9 / 5 (18) Aug 24, 2015
the need for greater international financial regulation

How about less needless rules that can be exploited?
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (18) Aug 24, 2015
Ah, unintended consequences... the bane of liberal policies.

They MUST be intended.
'Liberals' are soooo smart.
The intended consequence is what lee just said.
Create a policy known to fail requiring more govt control.
leetennant
4.3 / 5 (18) Aug 24, 2015
It's not a rule, dimwit. It's a trading scheme like any other global financial scheme. If it was a rule, we wouldn't have had this problem would we?
leetennant
3.9 / 5 (19) Aug 24, 2015
Ah, unintended consequences... the bane of liberal policies.

They MUST be intended.
'Liberals' are soooo smart.
The intended consequence is what lee just said.
Create a policy known to fail requiring more govt control.


Yeah, otherwise known as "global finance". Make sure you withdraw your funds from your local bank. You wouldn't want to participate in any "liberal conspiracies" now, would you? #headdesk
howhot2
3.7 / 5 (22) Aug 24, 2015
Well we all know that the deniers would just love this story. Because of their rightwing backgrounds and love for *ALL* things conservative, the butt plugs would of course pile on to this article. What the deniers are missing is that this implies some corruption in the market. Like it or not, that is just an aspect of a free market system. Deniers should look at the offenders, Russia and Ukraine are mention in right off as being the primary offenders. It's not Al-Gore causing problems... its corrupt government systems and corrupt crony companies causing the issues. It's typical for some countries to turn a blind eye at corruption like this.

Having said that, I need to freakout the deniers even more with the news that CO2 levels upticked to 401.30 ppm in July, which corresponds to NOAA's measurements showing it to be the warmest global temperature average EVER! By 2050 we are all going to be toast (lightly done but toast none the less).

antigoracle
1.8 / 5 (19) Aug 24, 2015
Well we all know that the deniers would just love this story...yak...yak..yakity...yak...hee...haw...heeee....hawwww. It's not Al-Gore causing problems

There he is again. HowhotTard braying like the donkey he is and not wasting any opportunity to defend his man crush, Al.
Yep, we are real happy about the billions in cost and other untold damage that all these "brilliant" ideas from the AGW Cult are causing.
howhot2
3.9 / 5 (19) Aug 24, 2015
Well we all know that the deniers would just love this story...yak...yak..yakity...yak...hee...haw...heeee....hawwww. It's not Al-Gore causing problems

There he is again. HowhotTard braying like the donkey he is and not wasting any opportunity to defend his man crush, Al.
Yep, we are real happy about the billions in cost and other untold damage that all these "brilliant" ideas from the AGW Cult are causing.

Yea yea yea.. typical denier goon squad from the Rightwingnut Cult accusing the scientists of deceiving them somehow. Too bad you didn't listen to Al, he was right on the money and has a Nobel prize to show it. You and your wingnut crew don't!
antigoracle
1.9 / 5 (18) Aug 24, 2015
Oh howhotTard, not only did your man crush, Al, make millions he also got you to sniff his anus and cause you brain damage...wait...I'm presuming you have a brain.
leetennant
4.4 / 5 (16) Aug 24, 2015
Oh howhotTard, not only did your man crush, Al, make millions he also got you to sniff his anus and cause you brain damage...wait...I'm presuming you have a brain.


Yes, Al Gore is a well-known Russian oligarch with links to Ukrainian organised crime. He would definitely have benefited from flooding the European market with bogus credits. This is obvious to everybody because of reasons.

I find it hilariously ironic that if we had a simple carbon tax and direct reduction targets rather than the complicated financial system insisted on by the same free-market economic rationalists that brought us the financial crisis, this would not have happened.
howhot2
4.1 / 5 (17) Aug 24, 2015
Oh howhotTard, not only did your man crush, Al, make millions he also got you to sniff his anus and cause you brain damage...wait...I'm presuming you have a brain.


I don't see you having a champion for your cause (the goose stepping Conservative party that seems to march to a FOX voice, doesn't seem to have any positive ideas). 16 of you tards and not a one worth spitting on. An you as an example, just hating on science, fact and observation. Geeze man, do you believe in unicorns too?

antigoracle
1.8 / 5 (16) Aug 24, 2015
Really?????
Al is your champion????
HowhotTard, your head is so far up Al's arse, I don't know where he ends and you begin!!
Have a gander at your champion.
https://www.youtu...Mfl4_WHs
howhot2
4.3 / 5 (16) Aug 24, 2015
Oh yeah, I love my dude AntiGorAcle. He's an easy denier to PO. Yah see, given that CO2 levels have gone from 315,86ppm in March 1958 to 401.3ppm in July 2015 in the same location, an 85.4 ppm difference caused from build up of giga-tons of excessive fossil fuel combustion, he denies, that the global average temperature increase from 1958 to 2015 has increased 0.7C. Since 1990, every global average temperature measurement has be above the global average temp for all measured temps.

If the anti-goracle can't accept the Al-Gore was right, and anti-goracle is full of it, then he must support corruption and be one of the corrupt.

Regarding your your political faves, Al is probably a hell of a lot bigger than Bush.

antigoracle
1.8 / 5 (15) Aug 25, 2015
If the anti-goracle can't accept the Al-Gore was right, and anti-goracle is full of it, then he must support corruption and be one of the corrupt.

Wow!!
HowhotTard believes his man crush Al was right and yet he burns fossil fuels like there was no tomorrow. HowhotTard must be proud of his stupidity.
howhot2
4.1 / 5 (14) Aug 25, 2015
My good friend Al-goracle needs some sleep. He can't answer the facts, the numbers, the science or the logic. 85.4ppm = 0.7C in Delta T of 57 years. Unfortunately it's not simple. The CO2 problem is exponential. CO2 builds up. So in the next 50 years, temps could increase 3.7C over 1958 temps. That is the big C, Celsius too dude 6.7F global average increase. That is in 2065,

So year, Al-Gore painted a scary scenario for mankind's future, but a true one based on modern scientific thought. Did you butty Bush or your favorite of the 16 clowns do that? No, I didn't think so.
jljenkins
2.7 / 5 (12) Aug 25, 2015
Screw the Cold War. Nuke Russia and Ukraine already. They've already declared life to be cheap at every level. I've a problem with their effect on the atmosphere- I don't like them using oxygen! I don't care what the cost. I wan those people eradicated.
AGreatWhopper
2.4 / 5 (14) Aug 25, 2015

Yea yea yea.. typical denier goon squad from the Rightwingnut Cult accusing the scientists of deceiving them somehow. Too bad you didn't listen to Al, he was right on the money and has a Nobel prize to show it. You and your wingnut crew don't!


Fucking gang banger! Obummer has a Nobel Peace Prize, and he's the biggest murderer around. Hey, back when I gave a shit, I argued with liberals when this was implemented about how this would be the obvious outcome and I got the usual scrum the point, close ranks, stay on message bullshit from feckless hypocrites. Denier? Is that like living just like the flat earthers but claiming you accept AGW? Who's fucking in denial? Hypocrite. You all are a joke. Literally. Not an ounce of intellectual integrity. Just straight gang-bangers. Yell insults like the other denier retards and live exactly the same. No principles at all. http://www.theoni...on-51111
NiteSkyGerl
2.7 / 5 (12) Aug 25, 2015
Feckless isn't exactly an adjective that I can see modifying murderer. I'm going to bed now, and I can tell you that when I dream about having my hands around antigoracle's neck, there will be nothing feckless about it.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Aug 25, 2015
Why is Soros buying coal?

"Last week, Obama's EPA announced sweeping regulations for U.S. power plants, forcing them to drastically reduce carbon dioxide emissions 32 percent by 2030. The news sent shockwaves through the coal industry, sending stocks tumbling and forcing the industry's two biggest players to consider bankruptcy filings.

That's where liberal billionaire Soros steps in. In the days after the Clean Power Plan was announced, Soros bought more than 1 million shares of Peabody Energy and 553,200 shares of Arch Coal — the country's two biggest publicly-traded coal companies."
http://dailycalle...e-soros/
Edenlegaia
4.2 / 5 (10) Aug 25, 2015
Screw the Cold War. Nuke Russia and Ukraine already. They've already declared life to be cheap at every level. I've a problem with their effect on the atmosphere- I don't like them using oxygen! I don't care what the cost. I wan those people eradicated.


Man, you want those people eradicated? Do it yourself. Build and bring your own weapon and create your very own hell without involving us, thanks.
And of course, don't mind the cheap lives you'll take while doing so. After all, Ukranians and Russians lives are worth less than yours, right?
gkam
2.8 / 5 (13) Aug 25, 2015
Oh, boy, . . bring on the Denier Kooks!

Sell them power from Vogtle!

Let them breathe smog!

Put them in a coal plant!

Build them a house in Fukushima!

Take away their A/C!
jeffensley
3.2 / 5 (9) Aug 25, 2015
As usual, you missed the point. This is about systematic corruption - especially in eastern Europe - and highlights the need for greater international financial regulation as we head toward more stringent global emissions targets.


A good system takes into account the human aspect. If it doesn't incorporate that, it's not really that good a system is it? Idealism is great but what we need is reality. Reality says we don't control the actions of anyone but ourselves... and even that is debatable sometimes. If you believe we should be using less energy, then use less energy. Good leadership is done by example, not by mandate.
AGreatWhopper
3 / 5 (10) Aug 25, 2015
"A new paper finds common errors among the 3% of climate papers that reject the global warming consensus"

And they get repeated ad nauseam on here by people with worthless lives.

http://www.thegua...n-papers

I have a more basic question. If they're so smart to see that 97% are wrong, shouldn't that have some kind of knock on effect? Wouldn't one of the idiots on here have managed to a) get a job, b) move out of their parents' house, c) get laid? Once? Idiots manage those things. I guess it's a form of idiot savant. Like the guy with an IQ of 60 that can play anything on the piano he hears on the radio.

If those losers ever had figured even one small thing out they wouldn't be in here fantasizing that they're somebody because they can yell invective and cut and paste the same self validating crap. Antigoracle must be really disgusting.
denglish
2.2 / 5 (10) Aug 25, 2015
They MUST be intended.

I don't think so. I think they were just stupid.

It's not a rule, dimwit.

Why is insult always your first point? Insult is the last resort of an exhausted intellect.

By 2050 we are all going to be toast

Gotta love unverifiable predictions. Anyway, what is the source of this prediction?

hating on science, fact and observation

Let's take a look at observation. Temperature predictions vs. reality:
http://www.drroys...2013.png

Oh, boy, . . bring on the Denier Kooks!

How many children have you sent to gay websites?

denglish
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 25, 2015
A new paper finds common errors among the 3% of climate papers that reject the global warming consensus


Ah, The Guardian. Bulwark of unbiased reporting. Anyway, lets look at the paper.

Those who reject the 97% expert consensus

Please point out where consensus is part of the scientific process.

Cherry picking was the most common characteristic they shared.

Both sides use this one against the other. Get original.

the model only simulated their temperature data reasonably accurately for the 4,000-year period they considered. However, for the 6,000 years'

Only 4,000 years? CMIP5 fell out in the first 5!

no cohesive, consistent alternative theory to human-caused global warming.

And they'll admit it too. Climatology isn't well understood enough to claim a universal theory to climate change.

The article ends with an admonishment that AGW is the only solution to climate change. What changed the climate before humans were here?
NiteSkyGerl
2.7 / 5 (14) Aug 25, 2015
Breaking news! PO was hacked and they've been collecting webcam data of posters.

For the morbidly curious: antigoracle http://www.bobbyw...uter.jpg

denglish: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/07/06/article-2169666-13EE5138000005DC-923_468x599.jpg

ryggeson: http://s2.quickme...7719.jpg

gkam with returners/benni: https://pbs.twimg...0BRL.jpg
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (10) Aug 25, 2015
Why do 'liberals' waste time on invective?

Does it just make them feel more superior?
barakn
3.3 / 5 (14) Aug 25, 2015
That's a good question, soggyring2. It's not like you hurl the word 'socialist' around like it's a dead cat 20 times a day. Oh, wait, you do. Perhaps if you investigate your own use of invective, you'll find the answer to why other people do it too.
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (10) Aug 25, 2015
'Socialist' is descriptive and accurate and therefore not invective.

Posting fake images and calling people inaccurate names, without addressing the issue at hand, is invective.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 25, 2015
Why do 'liberals' waste time on invective?
the same reason conservatives and everyone else does it
'Socialist' is descriptive and accurate and therefore not invective
so the following, in your own words, are also not invective, but descriptive- "denier", as well as "fraud", "delusional", "Sociopath" and many others used to describe those who refuse to accept facts over delusion, belief, faith or conspiracy ideation.

this especially is relevant to those willing to accept known, debunked, fraudulent data from people who have been demonstrated to be not only wrong, but proven with empirical evidence! like wuwt, curry, dr roy and so many more
fake images...calling people inaccurate names [like liberal?], without addressing the issue at hand, is invective
so is intentional distraction/red herrings, political clap-trap, posting known lies and intentionally inflaming the issue by denigrating a segment of population because you hate them!
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 25, 2015
Let's take a look at observation. Temperature predictions vs. reality:
http://www.drroys...2013.png
everyone loves falsified data, dont they?
plus, linking an image that is not in context that is known to be debunked with actual data and thinking people will fall for the fraud is like thinking you are safe to have unprotected sex with a prostitute and there isn't any way you could get a disease just because she is pretty
Please point out where consensus is part of the scientific process
there is a very big difference between consensus as you use it and the USE it has in climate science: the "consensus" is generated in AGW simply because there is an overwhelming preponderance of separate, individual experiments and studies that have repeatedly validated certain facts pointing to an overall conclusion that all the evidence points towards AGW etc...
there is not "vote" so that a party line is issued... it is simply collections of evidence
and NONE refuting it!
jeffensley
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 25, 2015

Ah, The Guardian. Bulwark of unbiased reporting. Anyway, lets look at the paper.


That they reference a non-existent 97% consensus is telling. To achieve that number one has to take liberties with the studies of others... and to do that one has to have intent.

denglish
2 / 5 (8) Aug 25, 2015
Breaking news!

wtf is wrong with you? Do you or your up-voters expect to gain credibility with that drivel?

That they reference a non-existent 97% consensus is telling. To achieve that number one has to take liberties with the studies of others... and to do that one has to have intent.

If the Mainau Declaration is any indication, the actual number in consensus of AGW in its current form is ~ 47.6%

runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 25, 2015

Ah, The Guardian. Bulwark of unbiased reporting. Anyway, lets look at the paper.


That they reference a non-existent 97% consensus is telling. To achieve that number one has to take liberties with the studies of others... and to do that one has to have intent.


would you like to provide evidence for "non-existent 97% consensus" ?
docile
Aug 25, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Aug 25, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
denglish
1.7 / 5 (11) Aug 25, 2015
Holy mackerel docile, well played.
leetennant
4.1 / 5 (9) Aug 25, 2015
As usual, you missed the point. This is about systematic corruption - especially in eastern Europe - and highlights the need for greater international financial regulation as we head toward more stringent global emissions targets.


A good system takes into account the human aspect. If it doesn't incorporate that, it's not really that good a system is it? Idealism is great but what we need is reality. Reality says we don't control the actions of anyone but ourselves... and even that is debatable sometimes. If you believe we should be using less energy, then use less energy. Good leadership is done by example, not by mandate.


Gee, @jeffensley anyone would think that was the entire point of the article? You know, being an article about a flaw in the design of the market that recommends we should design similar markets with greater regulation to avoid this kind of corruption in the future.
Eddy Courant
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 25, 2015
I'm shocked! Oh wait. No I'm not.
jeffensley
1.4 / 5 (9) Aug 25, 2015
jeffensley
1.8 / 5 (10) Aug 25, 2015
Gee, @jeffensley anyone would think that was the entire point of the article? You know, being an article about a flaw in the design of the market that recommends we should design similar markets with greater regulation to avoid this kind of corruption in the future.


I suppose you're going to illustrate how legislation/regulations "fix" the problem of human nature?
leetennant
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 25, 2015
Everything we do is about regulating human nature: from the Hippocratic Oath to Corporations Law.

Geez, dude, do you have enough straw or do you need to order some more?
Vietvet
4.3 / 5 (11) Aug 26, 2015
@jeffensley

Re your links:

That's quite the collection of politically driven deniers. Well, Richard Tol isn't so much of a denier but believes warming would be good thing, but after all he is an economist not a climate scientist Willie Soon didn't disclose the million and a half dollars in funding from .Moble Exxon.

"Legates is a signatory of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation's "An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming ".[10]
The declaration states:
"We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception."
https://en.wikipe..._Legates

Bast is a co-founder, president and CEO of the Koch brothers backed Heartland Institute and has no scientific background.

(To be cont.)
jeffensley
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 26, 2015
That's quite the collection of politically driven deniers.


Whew, you just wiped inconvenient information away with the sweep of your hand. Don't you feel better now?

I guess Legates' PhD in Climatology and experience in modelling are nothing compared to the credentials of SkepticalScience's John Cook (B.S. Physics) who co-authored the oft-cited paper regarding the 97% consensus. THAT paper I'm sure you would consider valid, right?
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 26, 2015
would you like to provide evidence for "non-existent 97% consensus" ?


http://link.sprin...3-9647-9


1st - Co-author is a certain Willie Soon I see....

http://www.desmog...lie-soon

http://www.skepti...ited.htm

2nd - link something by R Tol, Here a quote from him.....

"There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct."
To be found here...
http://wattsupwit...founded/

http://www.desmog...lary/660

3rd - irrelevent self-justification
4th - more stuff from tol, who has, as stated above, agreed with the Cook findings.
5th ... A Blog from Heartland. Are you joking??
runrig
4.1 / 5 (9) Aug 26, 2015
Gee, @jeffensley anyone would think that was the entire point of the article? You know, being an article about a flaw in the design of the market that recommends we should design similar markets with greater regulation to avoid this kind of corruption in the future.


I suppose you're going to illustrate how legislation/regulations "fix" the problem of human nature?

No, nothing can do that, but like policing/law and justice we try to mitigate it.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (11) Aug 26, 2015
@jeffe
http://link.sprin...3-9647-9
a Soon paper? credibility zero and that is validated fact
http://www.scienc...14002821
a repeat of paper one (see Runrig's post)
http://www.popula...#Update2
PopTech, the site that claims "Impartial Analysis" but then demonstrates partiality and blatantly so... that was proven here on PO over and over again by myself and about 15 others
http://www.thegua...ng/print
this one is an ARTICLE, not a study, so we can dismiss it out of hand as irrelevant
http://blog.heart...ange-97/
this one is a blog, which can also be dismissed as not scientific
your only two viable links are the first two, and they're debunked already (see Runrig, et al) by lack of credibility and more
sorry... if you're thinking that is somehow evidence that stands against the overwhelming studies that ARE being validated, then you are delusional
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (11) Aug 26, 2015
@jeffe cont'd
http://www.popula...#Update2
the lying partial, agenda driven PopTech site is also simply an agenda driven article and can be dismissed because it is NOT validated scientific peer reviewed publication... now, ANY site can get "awards" for whatever reason...
when a site blatantly LIES about impartiality and repeatedly demonstrates this in it's pages, from comments to producing actual data and reputable evidence it is FRAUDULENT, not reputable

i will say it again: ANYONE can make a web page and make a claim on the internet
case in point: http://www.buzzfe...wexpYz3x

it doesn't make it TRUE any more than belief in Santa makes x-mas non-violent and happy

if you want to produce EVIDENCE, then find reputable peer reviewed papers that are VALIDATED that support your point
DEBUNK the science already validated that keeps proving you wrong with ACTUAL SCIENCE, not "soon" or OPINION/blogs
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Aug 26, 2015
"From 1994 to 1996, the Enron Foundation contributed nearly $1 million dollars – $990,000 – to the Nature Conservancy, whose Climate Change Project promotes global warming theories. Enron philanthropists lavished almost $1.5 million on environmental groups that support international energy controls to "reduce" global warming. Executives at Enron worked closely with the Clinton administration to help create a scaremongering climate science environment because the company believed the treaty could provide it with a monstrous financial windfall."
http://www.breitb...osphere/
jeffensley
2 / 5 (8) Aug 26, 2015
3rd - irrelevent self-justification
4th - more stuff from tol, who has, as stated above, agreed with the Cook findings.
5th ... A Blog from Heartland. Are you joking??


I see your interest is in frantically discrediting authors and information I posted (at the request of another poster) instead of actually reading the material. FYI, the Heartland "blog" was simply a copy of the full version of this - http://www.wsj.co...13553136 - Wall Street Journal commentary.

You didn't bother responding to Cook's credentials and why you think they are somehow less questionable than the PhD Climatologist you're trying to assassinate because you don't like his beliefs.

I'd also like you to explain why the testimony of researchers saying their papers were mischaracterized by Cook (SkepticalScience) is somehow "irrelevant".
antigoracle
2.1 / 5 (11) Aug 26, 2015
gkam
2 / 5 (12) Aug 26, 2015
Not-so-breitbart is NOT a valid source of information. It was started as a propaganda outlet, and still is one.

\Maybe I'll start cutting and pasting some of the idiotic things said by Dubya every time Willie does it with other stuff.
jeffensley
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 26, 2015
Gee, @jeffensley anyone would think that was the entire point of the article? You know, being an article about a flaw in the design of the market that recommends we should design similar markets with greater regulation to avoid this kind of corruption in the future.


I suppose you're going to illustrate how legislation/regulations "fix" the problem of human nature?

No, nothing can do that, but like policing/law and justice we try to mitigate it.


My point is, how is writing down more rules going to change the behavior of governments who choose to go around/exploit these regulations? This is a philosophical question. This pertains to laws and their enforcement in ordinary society as well.
denglish
2.3 / 5 (9) Aug 26, 2015
My point is, how is writing down more rules going to change the behavior of governments who choose to go around/exploit these regulations?

It won't. To make it worse, they prey on the incompetents that, with no-doubt good intentions, institute and legislate such things.

They encourage and promote, and then profit.

Old game, only the faces change.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 26, 2015
I'd also like you to explain why the testimony of researchers saying their papers were mischaracterized by Cook (SkepticalScience) is somehow "irrelevant"
@jeffe
you have claimed to be educated in the scientific method, but you ask this?
ok, answer this: what is the difference between a validated study published in a peer reviewed journal and a blog or hear-say?
there is no peer reviewed study that is authored by a reputable scientist that states that all said scientists on said site are legitimate in their complaint, and the site is already known for INTENTIONAL BIAS as well as fraud, lying and banning refute out of spite and anger, so how does that make the site BLOG a valid reference? I could make a similar page and link comments (true or not) about curry, dr roy etc and use it as well... it would be JUST as valid as YOUR link

ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 26, 2015
Old game, only the faces change.

Bastiat notes the same problem in France over 150 years ago in The Law.

The game is socialism. Legislators, govt agents, etc. that think they know what is best for everyone else and are eager to use state violence to implement their plans.

Only one way to stop this is to limit state power to protecting the property rights of each individual, equally.
"No one can plunder anyone."
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Aug 26, 2015
how is writing down more rules going to change the behavior of governments who choose to go around/exploit these regulations?
@jeffe
this is actually a valid point, and i mis-rated your post. i meant to give you a three

the reason you don't get a 5 is that:
1- it is subjective and not hard science
2- there ARE ways to establish sanctions against gov't that exploits/goes around laws that are necessary for a reason... but it would require a joint governing organization (like say: NATO) or some other force to enforce said laws/regs

this is not going to fly well, especially in light of people's inherent fear of tyranny which has been repeatedly demonstrated through history... the US would not allow too much power in said organization (just like NATO) and the rest of the world would likely follow suit

this is a problem that is cultural and goes to the heart of the AGW problem, meaning: HOW do we fix the problem when there are those who will ignore the solution?
jeffensley
3.3 / 5 (6) Aug 26, 2015
Glad I clicked your last post Captain... very reasonable. Your point about fear of tyranny is why I think major changes need to somehow happen on the societal level. I don't personally trust increasing the enforcement power of large governing bodies. That power, even if created with good intentions, can and will be misused.

Somewhere along the line it became culturally "cool" here in the US to commute long distances to work in an over-sized tank and live in a house that could hold an entire South American village. That same cultural pressure could be used to encourage people to live lighter. I still remember how many people bragged about gas mileage back during the most recent gas price spike. You never really used to hear that. It definitely has become cooler to live smaller. I'm personally a free-market advocate. I think if we paid the real price for oil and gas (without subsidies/handouts), prices would climb, automatically making alternative forms of fuel and energy viable.
runrig
4 / 5 (8) Aug 26, 2015
Jeff:
I see your interest is in frantically discrediting authors and information I posted (at the request of another poster) instead of actually reading the material. FYI, the Heartland "blog" was simply a copy of the full version of this - http://www.wsj.co...13553136 - Wall Street Journal commentary.

You didn't bother responding to Cook's credentials and why you think they are somehow less questionable than the PhD Climatologist you're trying to assassinate because you don't like his beliefs.

#3 is irrelevent becasue ALL we need is the PAPER.
#4 shows in Tol's own words that he does not disagree that there is a climate concensus.
#5 Sorry ANYTHING posted by Heartland re Climate scince is defacto biased.
No need to respond to "Cook's credentials" as his paper stands for itself.

"testimony of researchers" also irrelevant without evidence from them.

http://skepticals...sus.html

ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 26, 2015
but it would require a joint governing organization (like say: NATO)

NATO is impotent.
How would ANY such organization do anything?

this is a problem that is cultural and goes to the heart of the AGW


The problem is NOT how WE fix the problem as this leads to your socialist, top down solutions.

real price for oil and gas

We don't? And the real cost of wind and solar? NO subsidies? No special treatment like being allowed to kill thousands of birds?

The only long term, sustainable solution is the free market, self interest, Adam Smith one. Limit the power of the state to protecting private property and keep the state from controlling the lives of others.
runrig
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 26, 2015
jeff:
Also don't you think that some of these papers contrary to AGW would have turned up on here?
That the likes of WUWT would have trumpeted them?
- those that they do would seem to be a minuscule number if >3% of the total.

Also:
http://www.skepti...bust.htm
barakn
3.5 / 5 (11) Aug 27, 2015
'Socialist' is descriptive and accurate and therefore not invective. -soggyring2
.

Not the way you use it. You're far to the right of Joseph McCarthy, which allows you to apply your own flexible definition of socialist to anybody you don't like as an epithet. Go ahead, I dare you. Find one positive comment you've made about socialists.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 27, 2015
flexible definition

Socialism defined: State control of private property.

If you support this you are a socialist.

How can I make a positive comment about socialists who use violence to control my life and the lives of others?
Why would anyone want to make a positive comment about socialists who want to control the lives of others? Unless you are a socialists who controls, or wants to control the lives of others?
I say 'lives of others' for a specific reason. Look up the film "Das Leben der Anderen" .
jeffensley
2 / 5 (8) Aug 27, 2015
"testimony of researchers" also irrelevant without evidence from them.

http://skepticals...sus.html


Sorry ANYTHING posted by Skeptical Science re Climate scince is defacto biased.

Huh, that WAS way easier than actually using my brain to discuss the matter intelligently. I see the appeal.

jeffensley
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 27, 2015
jeff:
Also don't you think that some of these papers contrary to AGW would have turned up on here?
That the likes of WUWT would have trumpeted them?
- those that they do would seem to be a minuscule number if >3% of the total.

Also:
http://www.skepti...bust.htm


I'm not arguing whether or not AGW is a phenomena. I'm arguing that the 97% is a stretch, that consensus is meaningless in the context of truth, and that anyone trying to use it to forward a cause is dabbling in politics and not science.
antigoracle
2 / 5 (12) Aug 27, 2015
jeff:
Also don't you think that some of these papers contrary to AGW would have turned up on here?
That the likes of WUWT would have trumpeted them?
- those that they do would seem to be a minuscule number if >3% of the total.

Also:
http://www.skepti...bust.htm

Really runrig, skeptical science!!
Now I know you have totally lost it.
Here, have a look at that 3%.
https://en.wikipe..._warming
HeloMenelo
2.8 / 5 (9) Aug 27, 2015
another one out of 5 for gorillacle, firm grips on those branches, firm grips monkey gorilla, the only evidence you provide over the years is you and your socks jeff,donglish et al...... being stupid... :D
denglish
2.3 / 5 (9) Aug 27, 2015
If 97% of scientists told these people poop tasted good, they'd eat it.
runrig
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 27, 2015
"testimony of researchers" also irrelevant without evidence from them.

http://skepticals...sus.html


Sorry ANYTHING posted by Skeptical Science re Climate scince is defacto biased.

Huh, that WAS way easier than actually using my brain to discuss the matter intelligently. I see the appeal.


Not if there are referenced peer-reviewed papers ... which there are for all articles.
BECAUSE - it's science site and not a Blog run by people who don't want AGW to be true.
Please don't let your delusion turn the world upside down my friend.
You don't go around and say science is biased but Blogs aren't.
If the logic of that eludes you ... I cant say I'm surprised.
jeffensley
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 27, 2015
"testimony of researchers" also irrelevant without evidence from them.

http://skepticals...sus.html


Sorry ANYTHING posted by Skeptical Science re Climate scince is defacto biased.

Huh, that WAS way easier than actually using my brain to discuss the matter intelligently. I see the appeal.


Not if there are referenced peer-reviewed papers ... which there are for all articles.
BECAUSE - it's science site and not a Blog run by people who don't want AGW to be true.
Please don't let your delusion turn the world upside down my friend.
You don't go around and say science is biased but Blogs aren't.
If the logic of that eludes you ... I cant say I'm surprised.


I guess you were too busy talking your way around your double standard to notice that the WSJ commentary WAS referenced as were some of my previous posts.
runrig
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 27, 2015

Not if there are referenced peer-reviewed papers ... which there are for all articles.
BECAUSE - it's science site and not a Blog run by people who don't want AGW to be true.
Please don't let your delusion turn the world upside down my friend.
You don't go around and say science is biased but Blogs aren't.
If the logic of that eludes you ... I cant say I'm surprised.


I guess you were too busy talking your way around your double standard to notice that the WSJ commentary WAS referenced as were some of my previous posts.

The point is the WJS "commentary" is just that - and as I said, worthless.
All commentary, when it comes down to it, is. Only papers that have gone through the peer-review are.
SkS has articles based on and evidenced by pr science. Not commentary.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 27, 2015
Only papers that have gone through the peer-review are.


""Science is littered with irreproducible results, even from top places, and it's a widespread problem that looks different in different domains,

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...tml#jCp"
denglish
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 27, 2015
Peer review ain't what it used to be:

http://www.spring...s/735218

http://wattsupwit...-remedy/

http://www.washin...ew-ring/

This one was peer reviewed too. From the abstract:

It appears that news media and some pro-environmental organizations have the tendency to accentuate or even exaggerate the damage caused by climate change. This article provides a rationale for this tendency by using a modified International Environmental Agreement (IEA) model with asymmetric information.

http://ajae.oxfor...abstract
antigoracle
2.1 / 5 (11) Aug 27, 2015
If 97% of scientists told these people poop tasted good, they'd eat it.

That's why there isn't enough AGW poop...er...excuse me..."settled science".. for them.
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2015
That power...can and will be misused
@Jeffe
if history is any indication, then it is inevitable that it will be misused...
but : who will enforce the law? with controls there MUST be an overseer. someone/something responsible for the violators and outliers (adopt Native US Aboriginal culture? problem still exists)
That same cultural pressure could be used to encourage people to live lighter
agreed, wholeheartedly
it is the reason my house is small and efficient [some say "green"]

i, too, am a free market advocate, but the cultural problem isn't so much the living/travel as it is the "disposable" nature of everything in society, from cars and phones to TV, computer, relationships etc
why change anything when it is easy to just go buy a new cheap [insert object/person/whatever]

change that part and the rest will be far easier to change, IMHO

Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2015
Skeptical Science ...is defacto biased
@jeffe
technically you can make that argument about most anything [except the studies]... but consider this point: can YOU provide studies to refute the statements?

skeptiSci uses studies and makes comments that are validated BY THE STUDIES... unless you can find a refutation or retraction, then the comment MUST stand as valid and cogent, especially if it is backed by studies/science

This is the primary argument against most people posting here: the evidence doesn't support their claims

Now, i normally don't link SkeptiSci, because a site/article is NOT the same thing as a study, but i WILL use their studies, links and arguments on occasion... but that comes back to comprehending the science
if it is not understood [see dung] then it will be dismissed by someone reading wuwt simply because their conspiracy site said so

that is not science, that is stupidity
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2015
If 97% of scientists told these people poop tasted good, they'd eat it.
@dung
first off... science IS saying that eating poop is good for you in some cases
https://en.wikipe...otherapy

it isn't saying it taste good, but THE EVIDENCE says it is effective and a medical necessity, so, given the same circumstances and assuming i had c-diff, then YES, i would. that is the difference between being an ignoramus spouting BS lies that are debunked and following the science... you can SAY that you wouldn't, but as long as you had never heard the term FMT (fecal microbiota transplant) you would likely also do it to save yourself

this goes back to the whole vaccination argument as well... WHY infect yourself with known disease? even if dead?

LEARN TO SCIENCE, you troll

Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 27, 2015
Peer review ain't what it used to be
it's almost comical that you would bring this argument up again... why?
in this thread you tried that BS lie: http://phys.org/n...eer.html

Schneib told you
230 articles out of how many hundred thousand?
I'm not advocating letting it slide, just noting that it doesn't seem to be endemic
Vietvet left this link: http://www.inform...391.html

This link gives NUMBERS... AKA Evidence... something you [dung] hate/can't seem to comprehend!
to which Schneib replied
Thanks, @vietvet. That's then 230/4,038,000 = 0.0057%

I'd say it's not endemic. Looks like about one in eighteen thousand.
so you can't do climate physics, regular physics, OR basic math.... anything else you want to admit to here?
denglish
2 / 5 (8) Aug 27, 2015
Holy "brevity is the soul of wit" Batman!

I wonder what that person said.
sdrfz
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2015
It's not a rule, dimwit. It's a trading scheme like any other global financial scheme. If it was a rule, we wouldn't have had this problem would we?


Call it whatever you want -- trading scheme, rule, scam, whatever. But we know it FAILED. And it FAILED miserably.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 27, 2015
I wonder what that person said.
and i wonder why the only time you make these type remarks is when i specifically refute or quote one of your own posts????

are you psychic?

or simply lying?

lets see... considering the above, and in other threads, and that you've been repeatedly caught lying... you also re-post your lies even when you "learn" they're lies...

Hmmm

tough one, eh?
antigoracle
2 / 5 (12) Aug 27, 2015
Peer review ain't what it used to be

Actually, the problem with peer-review is that the Chicken Littles confuses it with the pal-review of their "settled science".
SamB
2.3 / 5 (10) Aug 27, 2015
I bought up all the carbon credits in our neighborhood. That way I could continue using my old gas guzzling lawnmower with impunity! Works well for me and a few others in the area...
HeloMenelo
2.8 / 5 (9) Aug 28, 2015
Lol donglish aka antisciengorallacle has far beyond lost it years ago already, Runrig well said, posting on the other article gorilla himself talking about multiple accounts, This monkey has about 8 accounts in which he regularly engages puppet conversations with including jeffy, antigoracle,willieward, shootist, waterprophet, john mathon to name a few, he continually creates new ones too,

All he does with his life is comment BS on physorg, and are incompetent when required to prove evidence, always.. :D c'mon monkey, remember a firm grip on the branch makes for a better swing ;)

HeloMenelo
2.6 / 5 (10) Aug 28, 2015
ahh and now another sock samb

I bought up all the carbon credits in our neighborhood. That way I could continue using my old gas guzzling lawnmower with impunity! Works well for me and a few others in the area...


A pity when you got gas it goes out with a bang louder than your puny old gas guzzling mower, ever notice your garden not as green anymore ? take it slow on the red chilli's ;) I know posting BS on physorg is a crappy job, but hey, it keeps the world laughing and pays you your peanuts... ;)
denglish
2.3 / 5 (9) Aug 28, 2015
Actually, the problem with peer-review is that the Chicken Littles confuses it with the pal-review of their "settled science".

Conflict of Interest is a real problem. If humanity is not destroying the planet, they have no reason to exist.
Captain Stumpy
3.8 / 5 (10) Aug 28, 2015
Conflict of Interest is a real problem
but you have YET to be able to prove any conspiracy or "conflict of interest" with ANY science (or evidence) yet!
so .... although it CAN be a problem, this is called conspiracy theory and it is irrelevant to the subject
there HAVE been actual, validated studies which prove that there is a definite conspiracy AGAINST the science, however! it has evidence (that thing you hate) and has been verified too!
See: http://www.drexel...nge.ashx

If humanity is not destroying the planet, they have no reason to exist
so, you feel we should just ....what?
kill them off?

sdrfz
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 28, 2015
Conflict of Interest is a real problem
but you have YET to be able to prove any conspiracy or "conflict of interest" with ANY science (or evidence) yet!



Do you remember "hide the decline"? Climate-gate showed the insides of the beast, and it was pretty ugly.

And then afterwards, the denialists refused to believe that Climate-gate showed misconduct among the AGW promoters and scammers. So it is useless to try to convince denialists like you that corruption and politics has replaced real science and fact finding.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 28, 2015
AGWited like to deny that Ken Lay at Enron was lobbying GHW Bush to go to Rio and pass the Kyoto Treaty.
His letters are in the Bush library.
Enron wanted to make the fortune on carbon credits. Classic crony socialism.
runrig
3.7 / 5 (9) Aug 29, 2015


Do you remember "hide the decline"? Climate-gate showed the insides of the beast, and it was pretty ugly.

Bollocks....
https://www.youtu...6Z9t74QY
denglish
2.3 / 5 (9) Aug 29, 2015
Got through 22 seconds of that. I want my 22 seconds back.

Please, next time, post something worth watching.

denglish
2.6 / 5 (10) Aug 29, 2015
So it is useless to try to convince denialists like you that corruption and politics has replaced real science and fact finding.

So it is useless to try to convince denialists like you that corruption and politics has replaced real science and fact finding.

http://ajae.oxfor...abstract

From the abstract:
It appears that news media and some pro-environmental organizations have the tendency to accentuate or even exaggerate the damage caused by climate change. This article provides a rationale for this tendency by using a modified International Environmental Agreement (IEA) model with asymmetric information. We find that the information manipulation has an instrumental value, as it ex post induces more countries to participate in an IEA...

Peer reviewed, real science.

winthrom
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 29, 2015
Despite all the talk above, the real culprit is the wording said incinerate when it meant incarcerate. One cannot incinerate greenhouse gasses (especially CO2) because the O - C - O bonds are very strong already, and further oxidation would use very dangerous or very inefficient processes.

Incarceration of CO2 into Calcium Carbonate, or other schemes, such as filling old oil wells with CO2, are not practical.

Photosynthesis is practical if your nation has rain forests, (temperate or tropical) and does not cut them down for timber & grazing land.

Man-made photosynthesis is an infant science, but is probably the best bet for industrialized nations. In the mean time, Tesla cars, wind/solar farms, super-sized battery storage, bio-fuels, efficient lighting/homes, each take a cut at the CO2 green-house gas problem. Death by a thousand cuts is a good solution.
sdrfz
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 29, 2015


Do you remember "hide the decline"? Climate-gate showed the insides of the beast, and it was pretty ugly.

Bollocks....
https://www.youtu...6Z9t74QY


All I got from that video was a lot of hand-waving. Please explain how the phrase "hide the decline" can be used in the context of a scientific discussion. Why is it necessary to "hide" anything in a research paper?

hide:
1. put or keep out of sight; conceal from the view or notice of others.
synonyms: conceal, secrete, put out of sight
antigoracle
2 / 5 (12) Aug 29, 2015
I bought up all the carbon credits in our neighborhood. That way I could continue using my old gas guzzling lawnmower with impunity! Works well for me and a few others in the area...

The high priest of the AGW Cult, laughs at you in scorn.
https://www.youtu...309lbB8c
NeutronicallyRepulsive
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 29, 2015
It was never about GW, it was always about money.
howhot2
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 29, 2015
I bought up all the carbon credits in our neighborhood. That way I could continue using my old gas guzzling lawnmower with impunity! Works well for me and a few others in the area...

The high priest of the AGW Cult, laughs at you in scorn.

howhot2
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 29, 2015
I bought up all the carbon credits in our neighborhood. That way I could continue using my old gas guzzling lawnmower with impunity! Works well for me and a few others in the area...

The high priest of the AGW Cult, laughs at you in scorn.


Ha Ha Ha you puny nave.

http://thedailysh...confused
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (10) Aug 30, 2015
corruption and politics has replaced real science and fact finding
ROTFLMFAO
i gotta share this! dung says that his "abstract" demonstrates corruption etc and shows how it replaced "real science"... apparently he is taking READING and COMPREHENSION lessons from JVK! ROTFLMFAO

major point here... FROM HIS ABSTRACT
It appears that news media and some pro-environmental organizations have the tendency to accentuate or even exaggerate the damage caused by climate change
1- this is how media & all biased sources act
2- there is NO PROOF WHATSOEVER that this is science or that there is bias IN THE SCIENCE ITSELF... only the media and pro-enviro org's!
3- as a true conspiracy theorist... somehow the idiot thinks that the media accurately reflect the true science while demonstrating in his own post that it isn't true!

It doesn't say THE SCIENCE is wrong!
it targets MEDIA etc, NOT SCIENTIFIC STUDIES, you moron!

now THAT is a TRUE DENIER!
LEARN TO READ!
ROTFLMFAO
Vietvet
4.6 / 5 (11) Aug 30, 2015
apparently he is taking READING and COMPREHENSION lessons from JVK! ROTFLMFAO

@Captain Stumpy

Speaking of JVK and his reading comprehension (and how he touts a scientist until it is pointed out said scientist in no way supports him) see:http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

gkam
2.8 / 5 (13) Aug 30, 2015
This is what happens when a need in science gets taken over by politicians in the service of Big Money. It perverts everything.
HeloMenelo
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 30, 2015
antisciencegorilla quoted: I bought up all the carbon credits in our neighborhood. That way I could continue using my old gas guzzling lawnmower with impunity! Works well for me and a few others in the area...

The high priest of the AGW Cult, laughs at you in scorn.
https://www.youtu...309lbB8c

You should see him laugh at you while you swing out on a branch... :D
HeloMenelo
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 30, 2015
corruption and politics has replaced real science and fact finding
ROTFLMFAO
i gotta share this! dung says that his "abstract" demonstrates corruption etc and shows how it replaced "real science"... apparently he is taking READING and COMPREHENSION lessons from JVK! ROTFLMFAO


Well well Captain what can i say, Donglish, showing his true colours brighter than ever... you go get that bannana monkey, you deserve it :D
runrig
5 / 5 (6) Aug 30, 2015

All I got from that video was a lot of hand-waving. Please explain how the phrase "hide the decline" can be used in the context of a scientific discussion. Why is it necessary to "hide" anything in a research paper?


Dont you think that it is rather crucial what "hide the decline" is referring to??
Does that quote tell us what it is in isolation?
Deniers jump to a conclusion.

Oh, so your assertion is NOT hand-waving ?
Would you care to provide the full email and even better the conversation that email belongs to?

Actually it was from an email that discusses the merits of the construction of a graph for a presentation that incorporates tree-ring proxies from northern forests which have a known divergence from a linear correlation with temps.
NOT global temps.

https://www.youtu...nnVQ2fR/
runrig
5 / 5 (6) Aug 30, 2015
This a more comprehensive explanation of what really happened...

https://www.youtu...Ve6KE-Us
howhot2
3 / 5 (2) Aug 30, 2015
Well, all the junk aside, the bottom line is that if carbon credits are managed and operated in a fair and non-corrupt exchange, it could work. However, just a little corruption and the whole systems winds up in the garbage pit. It's not the best system for cleaning up CO2 anyway. A better way is a dictatorship style law that limits CO2 emissions applicable to all countries, land and people.

howhot2
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 30, 2015
A better way is a dictatorship style law that limits CO2 emissions applicable to all countries, land and people.
where none compliance effects trade. This lets local sovereign states deal with the issue locally according to their own customs, regulations and laws. Since copyright law is universal, why shouldn't environmental law? Since AGW leads to the extinction of the human race, and total destruction of the planet, it should be obvious to even the deniers, that to save your mortal existence in the future, Human CO2 output from fossil fuel combustion needs to stop 100%.

We need committed people, that will move this and fight and shut down the fossil fuel industries, and create in-place an electric grid system beyond description. We the human race need to transcend from fossil fuels to an all electric system in the same way that Star Trek classified civilizations "Warp Capable" or not. This is something we need to strive for as a planet of man.

antigoracle
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 30, 2015
antigoracle has to be...yak..yak..yakity...yak...hee...hawww

Whoa jimbo!!
Angry much??
Well, wait till your wife tells you, who your children's daddies are.

https://www.youtu...309lbB8c
antigoracle
1 / 5 (5) Aug 31, 2015
We need committed people, that will move this and fight and shut down the fossil fuel industries

And that's certainly ain't, you ignorant Chicken Little hypocrites.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Aug 31, 2015
Since copyright law is universal,


False.

Liberals *are* a disaster, SFB!


SFB?

'Liberals' create disaster when they have the power of the gun to control the lives of others.
Venezuela has food shortages and they are using there paper money for toilet paper.
Greece, Zimbabwe, China, USA, ....all have 'liberals' in power and all have collapsed economically or will soon do so.
All while 'saving the planet'.
Let's have 7 billion people burning wood and dung to keep warm. That will be very environmentally friendly!
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Aug 31, 2015
"One of the important lessons to take away from China's stock market crash is a lesson nobody on Earth should need repeated: communists lie. Collectivists of every stripe devoutly believe that lying to the people in order to maintain power and further their righteous agenda is not only acceptable, but required."
"The Washington Post ran a heartbreaking story over the weekend about how China's stock market crash wiped out small investors – poor farmers who wanted a taste of the good life that has been largely restricted to city-dwelling elites, and believed their government when it told them to invest their meager savings in the sure-fire success of the stock market."
http://www.breitb...paganda/
AGWites lie, too, and for the same reason, power.
howhot2
5 / 5 (3) Aug 31, 2015
We all need to fight to stop the goose stepping nutties like @R2 and @Antigoracle from dominating the talking space. So to both, what is your problem with strongly enforced regulations for controlling CO2? Human CO2 is almost certainly causing the extinction of 1000s of species of animal life, the loss of the polar ice caps with all of it's consequences, and will certainly cause land masses to burn up into crisp piles of waste land. So you wing nuts really want that?

Lets not have 7 billion people burn wood for warmth. Let's use renewable and CO2 neutral energy sources instead @R2! That would make a lot more sense than what your proposing.
It's a lot to consider when and a very weighty issue.

My other friend, the mighty @antigoracle suggests that what the concerns scientists express about global warming is the equivalent of a raving chicken littles and the are best fought in public forums like Phys.org. It's hard to be a looser all of the time isn't it @AL?




leetennant
5 / 5 (3) Aug 31, 2015
China has "liberals" in power...

Bwahahahaha.... wait, I, hahahhahaha, I just need to get my breath and ... bwahahaha

Oh dear God, save me. A "liberal" is a Liberal Democrat. That's right wing, by definition. Centre right but still right. China is a communist country. Please, please, if you do nothing else, buy a dictionary.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (3) Sep 03, 2015
We all need to fight to stop the goose stepping nutties like @R2 and @Antigoracle from dominating the talking space. So to both, what is your problem with strongly enforced regulations for controlling CO2?
--howhotTurd
What's that you mumble?
You got your head so far up, your man-crush, Al's rectum, I can't tell where he ends and you begin.
Tell us what CO2 neutral transport you used to get to Al's block party in NYC.
PS. If you see me goose stepping, it's only to avoid getting you on my shoe.
howhot2
5 / 5 (2) Sep 04, 2015
My sweet butt cakes @antigoracle says
If you see me goose stepping, it's only to avoid getting you on my shoe.
I'm not CO2 neutral. I want to be, but it's hard to be one. Perhaps you have some suggestions on how to be CO2 neutral that don't involve politics or Al gore, or the combustion of fossil fuel. Really, if we stop fossil fuel combustion the pending global warming apocalypse is over *if it isn't too late.

We are at the tipping point and you @antigoracle seem to want to see life on earth collapse.
Where are you ethics or morals? You have that little respect for yourself?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.