China to cut 40 to 45% GDP unit carbon by 2020

[Fraggle145]

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-11/26/content_9058731.htm


BEIJING - The State Council announced Thursday that China is going to reduce the intensity of carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP in 2020 by 40 to 45 percent compared with the level of 2005.

This is "a voluntary action" taken by the Chinese government "based on our own national conditions" and "is a major contribution to the global effort in tackling climate change," the State Council said.

In a meeting presided over by Premier Wen Jiabao Wednesday, the State Council reviewed a national task plan addressing climate change.

A press statement released Thursday said the index of carbon dioxide emissions cuts, announced for the first time by China, would be "a binding goal" to be incorporated into China's medium and long-term national social and economic development plans.

New measures would be formulated to audit, monitor and assess its implementation, said the statement.

Qi Jianguo, an economic and environmental policy researcher at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, told Xinhua that the targets would put "great pressure" on China's development.

"In 2020, the country's GDP will at least double that of now, so will the emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG). But the required reduction of emissions intensity by 40 to 45 percent in 2020 compared with the level of 2005 means the emissions of GHG in 2020 has to be roughly the same as emissions now," he said.

Qi, a quantitative economist who studies links between the economy and climate change, said as the world's largest developing country, China would face a great challenge.

In order to achieve the target, more efforts must be made besides strictly abiding by the principle of "energy-saving and emissions reductions," he said.

The government would devote major efforts to developing renewable and nuclear energies to ensure the consumption of non-fossil-fuel power accounted for 15 percent of the country's total primary energy consumption by 2020, said the State Council statement.

More trees would be planted and the country's forest area would increase by 40 million hectares and forest volume by 1.3 billion cubic meters from the levels of 2005.

The State Council said that as a responsible developing nation, China advocated global concerted efforts in addressing climate change "through pragmatic and effective international cooperation."

The Chinese cabinet reiterated the principled stand for implementation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Kyoto Protocol.

Both the UNFCCC principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities" and the Bali Roadmap should be observed, the State Council said.

The UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol should be carried out in a comprehensive, effective and lasting way, and emissions alleviation, adaptation, technological transfer and financial support should be coordinated in a comprehensive way to help bring about positive results for the upcoming UN Climate Change Conference in December in Copenhagen, the State Council said.

"Appropriate handling of the climate change issue is of vital interest to China's social and economic development and people's fundamental interests, as well as the welfare of all the people in the world and the world's long-term development," the State Council said in the statement.

China faced mounting pressure and difficulties in developing its national economy and improving people's living standards as the country's industrialization and urbanization accelerated, said the statement.

Given the country's huge population, prominent economic structural problems, coal-dominated energy consumption structure, and increasing demand for energy, the government needed to make strenuous efforts to realize those targets, said the statement.

The government was required to take into account both immediate and long-term interests while achieving coordinated development of its economy and the cause of environmental protection, said the statement.

Coping with climate change should be a major strategy for the national economic and social development, said the statement.

More funding would be invested into the research, development and industrialization of technologies for energy saving, and into energy efficiency, clean coal development, renewable energies, advanced nuclear energies, and carbon capture and storage.

Laws, regulations and standards would be formulated and fiscal, taxation, pricing and financial measures would be introduced to manage and monitor the implementation of those laws and regulations, said the statement.

The State Council also said China would expand cooperation with foreign countries in raising its capacity to cope with climate change and import low-carbon and environment-friendly technologies.

The State Council also advocated greater public awareness in addressing global climate change and encouraged low-carbon lifestyles and consumption.

The Kyoto Protocol, which aimed to pool world efforts to combat global warming, has been ratified by 184 parties to the UNFCCC since 1997, but it has not been ratified by the United States.

Under the Protocol, developed countries are required to set clear targets for emissions reductions The European Union, Canada, Japan and Australia, among other developed members, all set respective targets.

Developing countries such as China and India do not need to present any emissions targets.


So I guess the "noone else is going to cut their emissions" & "China is the worst producer and they arent going to cut their emissions" excuses are out the window now.

:pop:

[KABOOKIE]

Oh yeah? Well the U.S. is going to cut 75%.

[yermom]

heh

[JohnnyMack]

Oh yeah? Well the U.S. is going to cut 75%.

Yeah, because no one is gonna have a job so all the factories will be idle.

:D

[OUHOMER]

I will cut mine by 26.3%. No more cabbage. Just doing my part

[KABOOKIE]

Yeah, because no one is gonna have a job so all the factories will be idle.

:D

So where is the 40-45% cut in Cina going? Outsourcing to Khal****istan?

Or maybe they'll just not report it and hide the data.... :D

[JohnnyMack]

Or maybe they'll just not report it and hide the data.... :D

They'll hire the guys from Hadley CRU to pile up the data for them.

[Harry Beanbag]

It's a trap.

[StoopTroup]

We're all saved!

[Chuck Bao]

I'm also doubtful that China will be able to achieve that goal. But still, it is a good sign that they will try. It is a very good sign that China is taking its new role as leader on the world stage more seriously and they are conscious of world opinion.

China can get things changed quicker than you might think. China doesn't have a powerful big business lobby like the US. A large portion of its export manufacturers are owned by foreigners and they have very little say or input on policies.

Or, the whole thing could be PR and head off trade being tied to environmental issues.

[StoopTroup]

I just cut the cheese.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

WHY DO YOU HATE THE EARTH AND YOUR GRANDCHILDREN!?

[picasso]

This should help the hockey stick.

[BermudaSooner]

Damn, what is the rainforest going to do now? Without all that extra CO2, I guess the libs will be back to saving the rainforest.

[olevetonahill]

Damn, what is the rainforest going to do now? Without all that extra CO2, I guess the libs will be back to saving the rainforest.

Hell I been thinkin the Biggest deal is the Clear cuttin and Burning thats been going on fer 50 yrs in the Rain Forest and the rest of the world :rolleyes:

[BermudaSooner]

Hell I been thinkin the Biggest deal is the Clear cuttin and Burning thats been going on fer 50 yrs in the Rain Forest and the rest of the world :rolleyes:

The first search on Google, but I'm sure you'll find many others if you are interested.

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE50B5CY20090112

Global ice age, global warming, rain forests disappearing, it is all about the cash, and how the "scientists" can get it.

[OklaPony]

I don't know much about the nuts and bolts of this but a couple of questions definitely come to mind...

What were their levels in 2005 compared to other industrialized countries?

Can we (or anybody else) actually trust that they're going to follow through with the necessary transparency to ensure compliance?

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Human caused Global Warming is a FARCE!

[Okla-homey]

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-11/26/content_9058731.htm



So I guess the "noone else is going to cut their emissions" & "China is the worst producer and they arent going to cut their emissions" excuses are out the window now.

:pop:

Talk is cheap. I don't think anyone should take any comfort in this. They simply can't be trusted to do what they publicly state they'll do. If there was some way to verify these reduction goals, that would be one thing. But there isn't. The vast Chinese interior is closed to foreigners, and there is no free press in China to cry foul if they say one thing but do another.

I do like the increased emphasis on nuclear power though. Frankly, if we had any sense, all US electricity would be from nuclear by now.

[Chuck Bao]

Talk is cheap. I don't think anyone should take any comfort in this. They simply can't be trusted to do what they publicly state they'll do. If there was some way to verify these reduction goals, that would be one thing. But there isn't. The vast Chinese interior is closed to foreigners, and there is no free press in China to cry foul if they say one thing but do another.

I do like the increased emphasis on nuclear power though. Frankly, if we had any sense, all US electricity would be from nuclear by now.

I can understand some reasons for reservations, but I cannot see a reason to immediately discount these goals. I choose to give them the benefit of the doubt for now.

China is a different world than what you apparently think. If they are to achieve this, they will need US, Japanese and European engineers and contractors to go in and build it for them. And, that will be verifible. This is not the cold war era and China isn't Red China.

They have the money. They have the motivation in improving energy efficiency, the health of their people, head off any trade issues on environmental issues and gain respect that they have long been denied.

Maybe I am naive but I don't see this as a bad thing even if they can't fully achieve it.

Of course, some of you will say that it is a conspiracy and the liberal left has secretly taken over China.

[Okla-homey]

This is not the cold war era and China isn't Red China.



Dang it! Did they go and become a liberal democracy when I wasn't paying attention? See, I told you the CHICOMs were sneaky!

C'mon Chuck. I know you aren't so niave to believe the Chinese aren't going to say whatever suits their purposes to whomever they need to say it. Chinese policy decisions are calculated, just as ours are, to advance their interests. And such a statement, if it serves to cause the rest of us to say to ourselves, "well, China is a totalitarian state that denies its citizens unrestricted access to the internet and western media, enslaves millions as forced labor on political and/or petty criminal grounds, and has murdered as many of its citizens who refused to toe the party line, but hey...they're going to try to reduce their carbon-footprint so they must be okay." :rolleyes:

[yermom]

i'll believe all this when they stop selling us tainted food, building material, toys, etc...

[Okla-homey]

Besides, the truth is slowly coming out about the whole "man-made climate change" racket.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574559630382048494.html?m od=googlenews_wsj

[Chuck Bao]

Dang it! Did they go and become a liberal democracy when I wasn't paying attention? See, I told you the CHICOMs were sneaky!

C'mon Chuck. I know you aren't so niave to believe the Chinese aren't going to say whatever suits their purposes to whomever they need to say it. Chinese policy decisions are calculated, just as ours are, to advance their interests. And such a statement, if it serves to cause the rest of us to say to ourselves, "well, China is a totalitarian state that denies its citizens unrestricted access to the internet and western media, enslaves millions as forced labor on political and/or petty criminal grounds, and has murdered as many of its citizens who refused to toe the party line, but hey...they're going to try to reduce their carbon-footprint so they must be okay." :rolleyes:


You can roll your eyes at me all you want. You have some reading comprehension problems, apparently. That is pretty sad for a lawyer. I did mention that China isn't in the place that you thought it was. And, you cite all of the reasons why not to deal with China, but we still do. I did mention motivations as to why I think they will try to comply and you all of the reasons not to deal with China, but we still do.

I hate China more than anyone else on this board and I am encouraged and willing to give them a chance to do something that is right and proper. .

It really must stick in the craw of the nay-sayers of human-caused climate change to see China setting goals to comply. THAT HAS GOT TO HURT. Okay, I am not going to roll my eyes too much.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

It really must stick in the craw of the nay-sayers of human-caused climate change to see China setting goals to comply. THAT HAS GOT TO HURT. Okay, I am not going to roll my eyes too much.

It REALLY sticks in our collective craw now that there's evidence that the very evidence used to promote global warming was flawed from jump from the nefarious efforts of some folks that absolutely took a giant crap on scientific principle and method.

/sarcasm

I hope they do and manage to spend a buttload of money to US contractors hiring US citizens. And after the money is stuffed in as many pockets as we can stuff it in, we find, as current evidence is suggesting, that it's all for nothing and it's been crap all along.

[Chuck Bao]

It REALLY sticks in our collective craw now that there's evidence that the very evidence used to promote global warming was flawed from jump from the nefarious efforts of some folks that absolutely took a giant crap on scientific principle and method.

/sarcasm

I hope they do and manage to spend a buttload of money to US contractors hiring US citizens. And after the money is stuffed in as many pockets as we can stuff it in, we find, as current evidence is suggesting, that it's all for nothing and it's been crap all along.

You CANNOT BE SERIOUS. What happened to you? Are you lost? You cannot completely discount all evidence of the polar ice caps melting. I guess you think it is all a conspiracy and now China is playing with us. Seriously dude, those emails are not the smoking gun that you think it is. There is a lot of evidence and the very, very vast majority of scientists agree. It is folly to think otherwise.

[picasso]

Hockey stick!

[Curly Bill]

Good grief Chuck, when did you go all political on us? I remember when you seemed to stay outta that stuff, here lately you've picked up the liberal baton and run like hell with it.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

You CANNOT BE SERIOUS. What happened to you? Are you lost? You cannot completely discount all evidence of the polar ice caps melting. I guess you think it is all a conspiracy and now China is playing with us. Seriously dude, those emails are not the smoking gun that you think it is. There is a lot of evidence and the very, very vast majority of scientists agree. It is folly to think otherwise.

Sheep.

[SCOUT]

There is a lot of evidence and the very, very vast majority of scientists agree. It is folly to think otherwise.

Interesting comment considering those emails also discuss how to destroy dissent, and dissenters, amongst the scientific community.

[batonrougesooner]

Or, the whole thing could be PR and head off trade being tied to environmental issues.

ding, ding, ding...

[batonrougesooner]

Sheep.

this

[SoonerBorn68]

You CANNOT BE SERIOUS. What happened to you? Are you lost? You cannot completely discount all evidence of the polar ice caps melting. I guess you think it is all a conspiracy and now China is playing with us. Seriously dude, those emails are not the smoking gun that you think it is. There is a lot of evidence and the very, very vast majority of scientists agree. It is folly to think otherwise.

Yes. It's pretty easy to discount it when you believe that climate change is cyclical and has gone up and down for millions of years. Get your head out of the sand Chuck. It's all a political power play.

[Okla-homey]

Yes. It's pretty easy to discount it when you believe that climate change is cyclical and has gone up and down for millions of years. Get your head out of the sand Chuck. It's all a political power play.

This whole anthropogenic climate change theory is remarkably analagous to a new religion. The zealots who established the Church of Anthropogenic Climate Change scoff at those of us, whether scientists just plain folks, who do not bow at their altar. The church "priesthood" is being shown to be extremely committed to rooting out dissenters. In fact, people who are critical are colored as despicable as Holocaust deniers. Conspiracy? I dunno, but it sure smells like one.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Hockey stick!

Fake and Falsified!

[Fraggle145]

Interesting comment considering those emails also discuss how to destroy dissent, and dissenters, amongst the scientific community.

It appears in this case that this group likely did do this. Unfortunately it takes a **** on the entire other body of research.

People need to remember that was only one piece of evidence.

Some people lied to the entire world and they are ****ing **** faces... So that means all science is for ****. Got it.

Politicians and Businessmen do it all the time and we give them our money and trust. Scientists do it one time (granted a big time) and everything everyone else has done is ****. Got it.

People are just finally hearing what they are wanting to hear... Its really annoying.

[Chuck Bao]

I am a pretty opened-minded type of person. I will admit when I am wrong. But, I am 100% convinced that mankind is affecting the environment. You can twist words and intentions and play politics all you want, but there is no escaping the fact that man is affecting the environment. You can say that if there is a super volcano eruption and that would be just a normal cycle of the earth. That's fair. The consequences are still bad. We just seem to be hastening a very bad scenario on our accord. Why is that difficult to understand? I think Olvet mentioned destruction of the rain forests. I want to add the depletion of the fish stocks in our oceans. Now tell me that is not measurable.

[JohnnyMack]

Should we be responsible in terms of how we treat our mother earth?

Yes.

Are we the reason for this alleged increase in temperatures?

I doubt it.

[Curly Bill]

Should we be responsible in terms of how we treat our mother earth?

Yes.

Are we the reason for this alleged increase in temperatures?

I doubt it.

My thinking as well.

[Chuck Bao]

Heh! Is that a royal "we", JohnnyMack, as in you, yourself? The answer would be a definite yes. If Curly Bill piles on top of you, it would be x2, or maybe x3 with human combustion.

If the "we" as mankind and the answer is the same. If you lived in a city of 10million plus you'd get sticky and hot.

[JohnnyMack]

plus you'd get sticky and hot.

I'll thank you to keep your sex life out of this thread. Thank you very much.

[JohnnyMack]

As far as increase in CO2 goes, and this is a question I don't know the answer to, what's the corrolation, if any, between the increase of the worlds population along with their associated domesticated animals used for farming and ag purposes and the increase in CO2 levels?

[Harry Beanbag]

As far as increase in CO2 goes, and this is a question I don't know the answer to, what's the corrolation, if any, between the increase of the worlds population along with their associated domesticated animals used for farming and ag purposes and the increase in CO2 levels?

I've asked this question before and was shouted down as a heretic.

[Chuck Bao]

So, you're warming to the idea man-made climate change?

Wouldn't it just brown you off if gay couples were given a tax credit for their lower carbon emissions footprint? Ouch!

[SCOUT]

It appears in this case that this group likely did do this. Unfortunately it takes a **** on the entire other body of research.

People need to remember that was only one piece of evidence.

Some people lied to the entire world and they are ****ing **** faces... So that means all science is for ****. Got it.

Politicians and Businessmen do it all the time and we give them with our money and trust. Scientists do it one time (granted a big time) and everything everyone else has done is ****. Got it.

People are just finally hearing what they are wanting to hear... Its really annoying.
Take a deep breath. I was merely pointing out the irony in Chuck's point about all of the scientists agreeing while posting in this particular thread.

[JohnnyMack]

I've asked this question before and was shouted down as a heretic.

They were shouting "lunatic". Which, in all fairness is totally understandable.

[Fraggle145]

Take a deep breath. I was merely pointing out the irony in Chuck's point about all of the scientists agreeing while posting in this particular thread.

I was just ranting it wasnt directed specifically at you.

The fact that they probably falsified their data (again if true yada yada) is just so completely enraging.

[KABOOKIE]

The warmers will hold onto their believe that man is responsible for everything and they'll want everyone else to pay excessive fees and taxes to try and correct mother nature.

They can't help it. They're descendants of those who used to beat drums and howl at the moon as it went through it's phases thinking they were scaring off the evil monsters devouring it.


Aaahwooooooo! Aaahwooooooo! Bum, bum, bum bum, bum! Aaahwooooooo!

[Okla-homey]

The official doctrine of the Church of Anthropogenic Climate Change as set forth by His Holiness Pope AlGore contains two vital Articles of Faith; 1) it's man-made, and; 2) if we act now, we can reverse it.

The good part is, like when Dorothy's dog Toto pulled back the drapes in Oz's audience chamber to reveal the man behind the curtain manipulating the data...the scientists/hucksters have been revealed to the world at the perfect time stop the worst of the hysteria.

[BermudaSooner]

I am a pretty opened-minded type of person. I will admit when I am wrong. But, I am 100% convinced that mankind is affecting the environment. You can twist words and intentions and play politics all you want, but there is no escaping the fact that man is affecting the environment. You can say that if there is a super volcano eruption and that would be just a normal cycle of the earth. That's fair. The consequences are still bad. We just seem to be hastening a very bad scenario on our accord. Why is that difficult to understand? I think Olvet mentioned destruction of the rain forests. I want to add the depletion of the fish stocks in our oceans. Now tell me that is not measurable.

100% convinced, huh? If the evidence is so convincing, why the concerted effort to squash all dissenting opinion?

If the science is so overwhelming, why have 31,000 scientists signed a petition saying "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

Dude, that Emperor is frigan naked.

[yermom]

he said "affecting the environment" not "causing global warming"

[olevetonahill]

Hell I garendayumTee Im affectin the environment .:D

Now am I causein the planet to warm up ?
I doubt it
Hell I dont use much lectric
I use my truck maybe twice a week .

The rest is incidental stuff :D

[TheHumanAlphabet]

The positioners of Anthropogenic Climate Change have shown their true colors. They lie and cheat to "prove" their point and they have almost swayed a world. They have been proven liars and cheats and the recent "dumping" of the actual data from the records so you can't see how they "adjusted" the data only further proves they are trying to dictate to the world.

These so-called researchers are disingenuous and are a discredit to all Ph.D.s and researchers out there as they have compromised their research and the scientific method for their own gain. How anyone can ever take them seriously ever is beyond me.

Their data has been proven false or extremely compromised as has their models and conclusions. They will be dismissed by me until true data and research proves otherwise.

[MrJimBeam]

Isn't population reduction one of the remedies for global warming? If so the Chinese government is already doing their part through forced sterilizations and abortions.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

I can understand some reasons for reservations, but I cannot see a reason to immediately discount these goals. I choose to give them the benefit of the doubt for now.

China is a different world than what you apparently think. If they are to achieve this, they will need US, Japanese and European engineers and contractors to go in and build it for them. And, that will be verifible. This is not the cold war era and China isn't Red China.

They have the money. They have the motivation in improving energy efficiency, the health of their people, head off any trade issues on environmental issues and gain respect that they have long been denied.

Maybe I am naive but I don't see this as a bad thing even if they can't fully achieve it.

Of course, some of you will say that it is a conspiracy and the liberal left has secretly taken over China.

Or they could just take our technology and reverse engineer it like they've been doing for the past 40 years.

All I can tell you is my golf game is a lot better when I'm keeping score. I have a hard time believing anything that comes from our gov't much less the Chinese.

[swardboy]

....and of course, we all believe the Communist Chinese.

[Fraggle145]

The positioners of Anthropogenic Climate Change have shown their true colors. They lie and cheat to "prove" their point and they have almost swayed a world. They have been proven liars and cheats and the recent "dumping" of the actual data from the records so you can't see how they "adjusted" the data only further proves they are trying to dictate to the world.

These so-called researchers are disingenuous and are a discredit to all Ph.D.s and researchers out there as they have compromised their research and the scientific method for their own gain. How anyone can ever take them seriously ever is beyond me.

Their data has been proven false or extremely compromised as has their models and conclusions. They will be dismissed by me until true data and research proves otherwise.

you have to remember that their data isnt the only data involved in climate change research.

[picasso]

So now it's being called climate change? Well no ****, there's always climate change.

I have no problem with those that are beating them drum for this cause. Let's just not forget those who are just as qualified who disagree.

[olevetonahill]

So now it's being called climate change? Well no ****, there's always climate change.

I have no problem with those that are beating them drum for this cause. Let's just not forget those who are just as qualified who disagree.

Oh yea Bro since every one figured out we been havin Cooler summers and warmer winters
they Change the Tune to "Climate Change "
Its easier to defend

[KABOOKIE]

you have to remember that their data isnt the only data involved in climate change research.

What data? Apparently all they have is an opinion.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

So, you're warming to the idea man-made climate change?

Wouldn't it just brown you off if gay couples were given a tax credit for their lower carbon emissions footprint? Ouch!


I didn't know gay people fart less. This is why I come to the SO.

[picasso]

What about quiffing?

[Fraggle145]

So now it's being called climate change? Well no ****, there's always climate change.

I have no problem with those that are beating them drum for this cause. Let's just not forget those who are just as qualified who disagree.

Where were you like three months ago when we discussed in one of the umpteen separate global warming threads that it in fact was first called climate change? It only began to be called "global warming" because that is the way the trend is/was going.

[OklahomaTuba]

"Hide the Decline" as the criminal climatologists call it.

This whole AGW hoax is quickly self-destructing thankfully, so they have no other choice but to start a new fear mongering term. They have grant funding, government control and the Ken Lay/Enron Carbon Trading scheme to fight for. They can't let some little pesky facts get in the way of their goals.

[Chuck Bao]

I didn't know gay people fart less. This is why I come to the SO.

I don't know about that. I fart a lot.

But, gay couples probably produce less kids. I have no scientific proof about that for all you crazy anti-climate change people. It is only a theory. And, you are probably going to say that it is an agenda and conspiracy to manipulate data about two gay guys producing offspring. I have tried my best but to no avail and that is all I can do.

[Harry Beanbag]

I didn't know gay people fart less. This is why I come to the SO.

Loose sphincters = decreased venturi effect? :confused:

[KABOOKIE]

Faux News.

But, but ABC, CBS and NBC is real news!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578990,00.html


ABC didn't cover it. CBS didn't either. And NBC apparently wouldn't go near it.

The network news broadcasts have ignored a growing scandal over evidence of a potential climate cover-up — and now they've even been scooped by the fake news at Comedy Central.

"The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" produced its "reporting" on Climate-gate Tuesday night, when Stewart quipped, “Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!”

Stewart described leaked e-mails from Britain's University of East Anglia, including one referring to a researcher's "trick" to "hide the decline" in some temperature readings in recent decades.

"It's just scientist-speak for using a standard statistical technique — recalibrating data – in order to trick you," Stewart said sarcastically.

Nearly two weeks since news broke of the e-mail scandal, climate change skeptics have gloated; a leading climate scientist has resigned; at least one U.S. lawmaker has called for an investigation, and countless prominent news outlets have deemed the story worthy of major reporting.

Still, according to a report Wednesday morning by the conservative Media Research Center, "none of the broadcast network weekday morning and evening news shows addressed Climate-Gate or the incriminating Jones development. ... This marked 12 days since the information was first uncovered that they have ignored this global scandal."

The Business & Media Institute had just as much trouble finding the networks' Climate-gate coverage.

"An examination of morning and evening news programs on ABC, CBS and NBC since Nov. 20 yielded zero mentions of the scandal, even in the Nov. 25 reports about Obama going to Copenhagen to discuss the need for emissions reductions," the Institute reported Wednesday.

But during that time, the Institute says, "the networks reported on pro-golfer Tiger Woods' 'minor' car accident at least 37 times. They also found time to report on an orphaned Moose and the meal selection at the president’s State Dinner."

Media Research Center President Brent Bozell reacted to the findings saying, "To pretend this story simply doesn’t exist is damning to journalism."

That left Stewart to fill the void — with analysis of the comedic variety.

The comedian mocked the scientists for discarding the raw data used to formulate the adjusted temperature data that much of the scientific community agrees confirms global warming is occurring.

"Why would you throw out raw data from the '80s? I still have Penthouses from the '70s!" he joked

[SoonerBorn68]

Where were you like three months ago when we discussed in one of the umpteen separate global warming threads that it in fact was first called climate change? It only began to be called "global warming" because that is the way the trend is/was going.

I said it was a sham from the start. Scientists have to make a living. Grants help them make that. Political agendas fuel the research.

Natural gas is the short term answer. There's enough to power us for the next 100 years, given a few tweaks. If it's necessary for a new energy there's plenty of time to invent/make/develop/harness it.

[SoonerBorn68]

I don't know about that. I fart a lot.

But, gay couples probably produce less kids. I have no scientific proof about that for all you crazy anti-climate change people. It is only a theory. And, you are probably going to say that it is an agenda and conspiracy to manipulate data about two gay guys producing offspring. I have tried my best but to no avail and that is all I can do.

WTF does gay butt secks have to do with global warming, unless it's part of the overall current political agenda?

However, the data from the warmers is something akin to a monkey-f'ing a football.

[KABOOKIE]

Has anyone heard from Al Gore? That ****er better take up permanent residence in Canada after this.

[KABOOKIE]

Don't worry. Senator Boxer wants an investigation into this criminal activity!!


http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/70249-boxer-hacked-climategate-emails-may-face-criminal-probe?page=3#comments


Boxer: Hackers should face criminal probe over 'Climategate'
By Michael O'Brien - 12/02/09 03:26 PM ET
Leaked e-mails allegedly undermining climate change science should be treated as a criminal matter, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said Wednesday afternoon.

Boxer, the top Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said that the recently released e-mails, showing scientists allegedly overstating the case for climate change, should be treated as a crime.

"You call it 'Climategate'; I call it 'E-mail-theft-gate,'" she said during a committee meeting. "Whatever it is, the main issue is, Are we facing global warming or are we not? I'm looking at these e-mails, that, even though they were stolen, are now out in the public."

The e-mails, from scientists at the University of East Anglia, were obtained through hacking. The messages showed the director of the university's Climate Research Unit discussing ways to strengthen the unit's case for global warming. Climate change skeptics have seized on the e-mails, arguing that they demonstrate manipulation in environmental science.

Boxer said her committee may hold hearings into the matter as its top Republican, Sen. James Inhofe (Okla.), has asked for, but that a criminal probe would be part of any such hearings.

"We may well have a hearing on this, we may not. We may have a briefing for senators, we may not," Boxer said. "Part of our looking at this will be looking at a criminal activity which could have well been coordinated.

"This is a crime," Boxer said.



Psssst..... It's called FOI. Silly liberals. You're making 2010 and 2012 a slam dunk now.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

you have to remember that their data isnt the only data involved in climate change research.
Well, today a report comes out that NASA has been shaving their data as well. Won't release data to a FOI request and the guy is gonna sue. NASA has long drunk the kool-aid and won't release real data as well. I think they are all in cahoots and the real data will show that the trend may not exist.

[Chuck Bao]

Well, today a report comes out that NASA has been shaving their data as well. Won't release data to a FOI request and the guy is gonna sue. NASA has long drunk the kool-aid and won't release real data as well. I think they are all in cahoots and the real data will show that the trend may not exist.

Seriously, I will believe it when I see it. The melting polar ice caps and the melting glaciers are not easy to fake. My mom visited some glacier in Canada a few months ago and the locals were talking about how it was rapidly disappearing. They could have been lying, though, to get extra tips on the premise of fewer tours to a rapidly deminishing glacier. It would probably been better for them if my mom were a better tipper.

[KABOOKIE]

So the galciers are melting? BFD. What's easy to fake is a bunch of BS data that shows man is the culprit.

[Chuck Bao]

So the galciers are melting? BFD. What's easy to fake is a bunch of BS data that shows man is the culprit.

Alrighty, I am willing to play along and try to add to this discussion. Would it matter much to you that man isn't the main culprit? Man just added a few stabs with a knife and twisted it in as the planet was going into a climate swing that will affect all of our lives and quite negatively. Can we still feel good about ourselves? I mean if it is going to happen anyway, we might as well just enjoy life as much as we can. Nevermind that we helped hasten the inevitable. That is not the point, right?

[Fraggle145]

I said it was a sham from the start. Scientists have to make a living. Grants help them make that. Political agendas fuel the research.

Natural gas is the short term answer. There's enough to power us for the next 100 years, given a few tweaks. If it's necessary for a new energy there's plenty of time to invent/make/develop/harness it.

I've never said I was against natural gas. To me no matter which side you fall down on anymore it just comes down to being more efficient and being a good steward to the Earth. Basically using our resources responsibly, and not yelling DAMN ENVIRONMENTALIST when you cant have what you want right away, and vice versa about DAMN MONEY GRUBBING POLLUTERS. There is often a balance out there, Science should help find that balance. I mean everything I do is applied research so I can see things and are involved with many government managers and private consumers.

For what it is worth I am starting to get more than a little angry about all of this and what it means for science... I'll keep watching about that NASA thing, and like with the CRU thing I'll believe it when I see it.

[KABOOKIE]

Alrighty, I am willing to play along and try to add to this discussion. Would it matter much to you that man isn't the main culprit? Man just added a few stabs with a knife and twisted it in as the planet was going into a climate swing that will affect all of our lives and quite negatively. Can we still feel good about ourselves? I mean if it is going to happen anyway, we might as well just enjoy life as much as we can. Nevermind that we helped hasten the inevitable. That is not the point, right?

Oh certainly. However, the key to feeling good is truth and education. People who have to lie to further their agenda will never succeed no matter how noble the cause.

[hellogoodbye]

I've never said I was against natural gas. To me no matter which side you fall down on anymore it just comes down to being more efficient and being a good steward to the Earth. Basically using our resources responsibly, and not yelling DAMN ENVIRONMENTALIST when you cant have what you want right away, and vice versa about DAMN MONEY GRUBBING POLLUTERS. There is often a balance out there, Science should help find that balance. I mean everything I do is applied research so I can see things and are involved with many government managers and private consumers.

For what it is worth I am starting to get more than a little angry about all of this and what it means for science... I'll keep watching about that NASA thing, and like with the CRU thing I'll believe it when I see it.

Well put. Its the weather\climate correlation that makes me yell DAMN <insert whoever here>. 5 then 10 and now 25 year window \ STOP Climate Change (heh) \ flooded coastal cities etc etc. We should all be concerned about our impact - for the right reasons. Not some BS fear tactic like AGW.

IMO, all this means is that China is finally realizing that its burgeoning middle class is truly suffering from pollution that resulted from their economic boom - the regular real air pollution that hangs over their cities, and not it's supposed climate impact.

I just wish that a fraction of the energy that is put in AGW was spent on developing the next energy source, we would actually be getting somewhere...

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Seriously, I will believe it when I see it. The melting polar ice caps and the melting glaciers are not easy to fake. My mom visited some glacier in Canada a few months ago and the locals were talking about how it was rapidly disappearing. They could have been lying, though, to get extra tips on the premise of fewer tours to a rapidly deminishing glacier. It would probably been better for them if my mom were a better tipper.

Easily explained by natural changes, not anthropomorphic changes.

[Okla-homey]

I've never said I was against natural gas. To me no matter which side you fall down on anymore it just comes down to being more efficient and being a good steward to the Earth. Basically using our resources responsibly, and not yelling DAMN ENVIRONMENTALIST when you cant have what you want right away, and vice versa about DAMN MONEY GRUBBING POLLUTERS. There is often a balance out there, Science should help find that balance. I mean everything I do is applied research so I can see things and are involved with many government managers and private consumers.

For what it is worth I am starting to get more than a little angry about all of this and what it means for science... I'll keep watching about that NASA thing, and like with the CRU thing I'll believe it when I see it.

I'm completely down with being a good steward of the environment. That just makes good sense.

What I'm not down with is the green socialist movement who fervently beleive we should all become vegans, cease bathing regularly, and fertilize our home vegetable gardens with our poop saved for that purpose or the Earth will stop being habitable within the next 10 years. It's the over-selling of and hype of the thing that destroys the message.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

^^^^
Whole heartedly agree. I recycle, I compost, I pack my trash out. I do it, because I choose to and want to be a good steward. Just don't tax me or remove my personal liberties to throw down "your" socialist agenda.

[Okla-homey]

Best enviro-message ever: Back when I was a kid, Iron Eyes Cody squirting a tear after surveying a horribly polluted landscape.

Worst enviro-message: The Earth is heating-up to the point our coastal cities will be inundated and there will be apocolyptic weather catastrophes out the ying-yang unless we all are taxed to bolivia and cows stop farting. And we must act immediately and with great resolve, or it'll be too late and we'll all suffocate, die of heat stroke and/or drown. And stuff.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

BEST: Through quality, dedicated management, game fish and animals enjoy preserved habitats, are ensured preservation of species, and through said management, the tools to become good stewards of the land are available to all.

WORST: Hunting and fishing are bad, mmkay? You're killing the earth's creatures and your taking of these stocks is disturbing the natural balance.

[picasso]

Where were you like three months ago when we discussed in one of the umpteen separate global warming threads that it in fact was first called climate change? It only began to be called "global warming" because that is the way the trend is/was going.

Sorry but I rarely read these silly threads.

The trend is going towards it being a cluster **** of a scam.

[Okla-homey]

This blogger nicely sums-up the major media silence on the collapsed anthropomorphic climate change theory.


Generally speaking, people who launch media careers are “do-gooders,” wanting to inform the people regarding how to make the world and their communities better places. It comes off, mostly, as a liberal bias. Most news people in the United States voted for Al Gore. They support the United Nations. They want to advance the environmental issues of clean water and clean air, and protect our natural areas.

So when global warming came along, they accepted it immediately, without question, as a major environmental challenge that they needed to tell the public about. They felt they needed to help bring about the changes required to solve the problem.

For years and years — peaking with the Al Gore movie and the UN conference in Bali — every scientific paper about melting ice, the plight of polar bears, the fear of submerged coastlines, and the entire spectrum of far-fetched global warming-related claims and studies was reported with priority and without question. The media felt it was doing great service towards saving the planet. And the bosses knew nothing built ratings better than “the sky is falling.”

The skeptics were regarded as cranks and shills for evil polluters, such as the oil companies. If they got coverage at all, it was negative.

Now comes Climategate. It is out of step with the media agenda. What does the media do now?

“Ignore it,” has been the first answer.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/coleman-media-will-ignore-climategate-until-they-hear-i-was-wrong-pjm-exclusive/

[Fraggle145]

I'm completely down with being a good steward of the environment. That just makes good sense.

What I'm not down with is the green socialist movement who fervently beleive we should all become vegans, cease bathing regularly, and fertilize our home vegetable gardens with our poop saved for that purpose or the Earth will stop being habitable within the next 10 years. It's the over-selling of and hype of the thing that destroys the message.

Dude I hate those ****ers too... The problem is that there is two sides to that coin and the hype machine coming from the other side generates the same kind of backlash from the hippies.

Nothing ever comes of it...