I get 330 days per year that have no real clouds until the aircraft ruin the day. Do you look up much?
Death knell for AGW
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
You wouldn't like what you see. You might even begin to piece two and two together.
You're jumping the gun. Just because I don't look up much, doesn't mean that I don't look up at all. During my leisure time I do look up often, though leisure time is far outweighed by working time.
I luckily work outdoors and these parts you don't need to look up to see the sky. If you were too see my skies then your trust in the what you are told would falter in a hurry. I know what I see and when what I see isn't included in the data sets, I have to stop and say;"WTF, This is Bull****!?"
If you think I'm bull****ting I'll gladly set up my camera and take a pic every 15mins and you can watch my blue sky go white from aircraft too.
I lived on the Prairies...what exactly is it you think that I think, and that you think would shake the trust that you think I have in what you think I think?
Maybe you're looking in the wrong data sets...if you weren't so ubiquitously vague...well this conversation might actually go somewhere.
Which data set where you hoping to find measures of sky colour in???
I posted some stuff from NASA and how they aren't happy the IPCC doesn't seperate natural cirus cloud formation from the ones made by aircraft.
Too bad you flipped it off.
Ahh, because that was clear from the five posts leading up to this...sorry, but I don't have an encyclopedic memory of every post made by every poster in every thread that I've ever posted to.
Yes it is interesting how IPCC has no classification for CONTROLABLE man made cirus cloud formations to distinguish from the natural.
NASA and NOAA have claimed that these CONTROLABLE man made cirus formations need to be catalogued in the IPCC formula and researched far more seriously as they are the source of 40% of the atmospheric vapour.
What have you gleaned from this interesting fact?
Nothing new other than you think warming is attributed to an anthropogenic forcing.
So simple that any moron who can drive a car or bake cookies should be capable of replicating the experimental design.
I'm sorry, what were you saying about corruption?
...
WikiLeaks cables reveal how US manipulated climate accord | Environment | The Guardian
Seeking negotiating chips, the US state department sent a secret cable on 31 July 2009 seeking human intelligence from UN diplomats across a range of issues, including climate change. The request originated with the CIA. As well as countries' negotiating positions for Copenhagen, diplomats were asked to provide evidence of UN environmental "treaty circumvention" and deals between nations.
But intelligence gathering was not just one way. On 19 June 2009, the state department sent a cable detailing a "spear phishing" attack on the office of the US climate change envoy, Todd Stern, while talks with China on emissions took place in Beijing. Five people received emails, personalised to look as though they came from the National Journal. An attached file contained malicious code that would give complete control of the recipient's computer to a hacker. While the attack was unsuccessful, the department's cyber threat analysis division noted: "It is probable intrusion attempts such as this will persist."
The Beijing talks failed to lead to a global deal at Copenhagen. The US, the world's biggest historical polluter and long isolated as a climate pariah, now had something to cling to. The Copenhagen accord, hammered out in the dying hours but not adopted into the UN process, offered to solve many of the US's problems.
The accord turns the UN's top-down, unanimous approach upside down, with each nation choosing palatable targets for greenhouse gas cuts. It presents a far easier way to bind in China and other rapidly growing countries than the UN process. But the accord cannot guarantee the global greenhouse gas cuts needed to avoid dangerous warming. Furthermore, it threatens to circumvent the UN's negotiations on extending the Kyoto protocol, in which rich nations have binding obligations.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-us-manipulated-climate-accord
...
WikiLeaks cables reveal how US manipulated climate accord | Environment | The Guardian
Seeking negotiating chips, the US state department sent a secret cable on 31 July 2009 seeking human intelligence from UN diplomats across a range of issues, including climate change. The request originated with the CIA. As well as countries' negotiating positions for Copenhagen, diplomats were asked to provide evidence of UN environmental "treaty circumvention" and deals between nations.
But intelligence gathering was not just one way. On 19 June 2009, the state department sent a cable detailing a "spear phishing" attack on the office of the US climate change envoy, Todd Stern, while talks with China on emissions took place in Beijing. Five people received emails, personalised to look as though they came from the National Journal. An attached file contained malicious code that would give complete control of the recipient's computer to a hacker. While the attack was unsuccessful, the department's cyber threat analysis division noted: "It is probable intrusion attempts such as this will persist."
The Beijing talks failed to lead to a global deal at Copenhagen. The US, the world's biggest historical polluter and long isolated as a climate pariah, now had something to cling to. The Copenhagen accord, hammered out in the dying hours but not adopted into the UN process, offered to solve many of the US's problems.
The accord turns the UN's top-down, unanimous approach upside down, with each nation choosing palatable targets for greenhouse gas cuts. It presents a far easier way to bind in China and other rapidly growing countries than the UN process. But the accord cannot guarantee the global greenhouse gas cuts needed to avoid dangerous warming. Furthermore, it threatens to circumvent the UN's negotiations on extending the Kyoto protocol, in which rich nations have binding obligations.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-us-manipulated-climate-accord
For 13 years, the U.S. has refused to join the rest of the industrialized world in the Kyoto Protocol, a 1997 add-on to the climate treaty that mandates modest emissions reductions by richer nations. The U.S. complained that it would hurt its economy and that Kyoto should have mandated actions as well by such emerging economies as China and India.
I have two questions:
Last time I checked China, India and the United States are the industrialized world. Are there any countries who produce more than those three?
2. Why is it that they hold the meetings in places like Cancun, Bali, Rio etc. Why not hold the meetings in places like Hoboken, NJ, Liberty City, FL, Buffalo, NY? The next one will be in a Lisbon, Portugal, another beautiful place.
Wonder how much energy is consumed keeping the delegates happy and feeling like they are accomplishing something.
I have two questions:
Last time I checked China, India and the United States are the industrialized world. Are there any countries who produce more than those three?
2. Why is it that they hold the meetings in places like Cancun, Bali, Rio etc. Why not hold the meetings in places like Hoboken, NJ, Liberty City, FL, Buffalo, NY? The next one will be in a Lisbon, Portugal, another beautiful place.
Wonder how much energy is consumed keeping the delegates happy and feeling like they are accomplishing something.