Courtesy of G.O.T.
Energy experts and politicians are focusing on this month's climate change summit in Copenhagen. Much attention will be paid to the opinions of the US and Chinese governments, which between them account for 40% of global greenhouse gasses.
In the case of the US, any agreement to bring about major emission reductions would need Senate approval.
Meanwhile McIntyre and others continue to analyse the Climategate letters with precision. The scrutiny and debate will take some time, maybe years. As I always try to be balanced in my opinions and here are a few tips for the scientists at UEA.
The politicians can't afford to lose face in Copenhagen, but they all know that recent events have seriously dented the prospects of new nuclear-build projects, including the present weakness of world gas prices. In the nuclear sector there has been a raft of bad news, including cost and time overruns, along with technical concerns about the new designs.
Will Copenhagen produce anything more than superficial agreements? The key decisions have already been made says Global Researcher (a very interesting read). After the celebrity bash is over and they're taken home in their private jets, they'll rub their hands with glee at the prospect of managing to grab our hard earned cash so easily.
Along with other doubters, I'm pleased that Copenhagen may not produce everything many politicians desire. We need as much time as possible for the sceptical scientists to see the figures which have been hidden for so long and to make their comparisons.
Grumpy Old Twat has re-designed the picture and the banner below. He has a selection on his site and is happy to give them away free. Now you don't get much for free in this country these days so go and help yourself!
Posts
12 comments:
Yes, the problem is that they'll take the money and run anyway, the CRU leak/exposure was a month too late, still the games up anyway, it's just that they'll pick our pockets before we stop them in their tracks.
I think the Summit we should be having is with the scientists.
My work colleagues now refer to me as a denier and not a sceptic.
Echos of nazis or what.
Many of them have already made vulgar amounts of money QM and only for pedaling the propaganda.
We'll stop them though, I think the country will eventually waken up to what's going on once the data is in the public domain. May take a while but it'll be worth it.
Hello Irene. I think scientists will be there but of course they will all be the yes men to the pro-politicians. The day will come when the sceptical scientists are given a loud voice though - I think the public will demand it.
Awful connotations that word hasn't it? I was called in on a blog the other week and it upset me too. I decided to think of it as the meaning of a thickness of stocking (nylons they were called in my day). So I imagine the person saying it to be around 80 denier (thick and rough) and myself to be around 10 denier (smooth and silky). Works a treat. :)
I am proud to be a denier of Bilderberger sh*t. One day The Lord will stop laughing at them.
One day OR and it can't come fast enough for me.
Rosie, thanks for helping to spread the word on the alternative 'Act On Co2' advert campaign. Much appreciated.
Btw, Have you seen this yet?
G.O.T.
Am I grossly mistaken or is that Stirling Castle superimposed on "Google", complete with Saltire flying? What gives?
Just on news 01:30 5live.
Australian parliament rejects green house gas legislation.!!.
I've seen it now G.O.T. He should resign not stand aside and keep receiving our money.
Hey Apogee, what great news! I'll go and tune in.
Thats the problem with the Denier thing " Holocaust denier Nick Griffin now leads climate change deniers " Cheers Nick
http://actonco2.direct.gov.uk/actonco2/home.html
You searched for:
"climate change scam"
Did you mean climate change seam?
No, I meant climate change scam.
Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal today Climategate: follow the money
Thanks for the link banned. I've used it for later.
Post a Comment