Al Gore shoots self, climate summit in foot

[beNder]

Oh dear. Saint Al Gore, the man who invented both the internet (http://www.tgdaily.com/sustainability-features/45069-al-gore-shoots-self-climate-summit-in-foot#) and anthropogenic global warming and made himself obscenely rich in the process, has banged yet another nail into the rickety coffin of the global warming religious cult by coming out with what scientists describe as 'a complete load of bollocks' at the Copenhagen climate worryfest.

Gore, speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, claimed that the latest research (http://www.tgdaily.com/sustainability-features/45069-al-gore-shoots-self-climate-summit-in-foot#) showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years. One would think that in the light of the Climategate scandal, the Blessed Al would make sure that his data (http://www.tgdaily.com/sustainability-features/45069-al-gore-shoots-self-climate-summit-in-foot#) was accurate and pretty much bullet-proof, but sadly he merely added to the pantheon of completely fabricated climate stats.

In his speech, Gore said: “These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.”

Unfortunately, the scientist whose research was quoted by Gore, Doctor Wieslav Maslowski, rather pissed on his chips by stating:
“It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at. I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”

A Gore spokesman backpedalled furiously, saying that the figure quoted was merely a ballpark figure that was mentioned in a conversation between the two men a few years ago.

The Copenhagen conference (http://www.tgdaily.com/sustainability-features/45069-al-gore-shoots-self-climate-summit-in-foot#) was already looking pretty much dead in the water yesterday after the African delegation walked out in protest at Danish moves to ignore emissions targets agreed at the Kyoto conference in 2007. Gore’s gaffe makes it look very much as if no meaningful agreement will be reached before the conference ends.

Gore’s speech was slammed by climate scientists, one of which, Jim Overland from the US Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said: “This is an exaggeration that opens the science up to criticism from sceptics. You really don’t need to exaggerate the changes in the Arctic.”

Maslowki, who works at the US Naval Postgraduate School in California, said that he expects some ice to remain beyond 2020: “I was very explicit that we were talking about near-ice-free conditions and not completely ice-free conditions in the northern ocean. I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this. It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at, based on the information (http://www.tgdaily.com/sustainability-features/45069-al-gore-shoots-self-climate-summit-in-foot#) I provided to Al Gore’s office.”

http://www.tgdaily.com/sustainability-features/45069-al-gore-shoots-self-climate-summit-in-foot

[Chulo]

I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this. It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at, based on the information (http://www.tgdaily.com/sustainability-features/45069-al-gore-shoots-self-climate-summit-in-foot#) I provided to Al Gore’s office.”

Money > Fact = Polar Ice caps will melt and drown panda bears

[beNder]

Seems like they are going round and round with this and not accomplishing much.

[Rakki]

Al Gore's a busy man. Can't be expected to really understand everything he's supposed to peddle.

[Geezah]

We need Dee Snider to take on this battle and once again take Al and Tipper(I secrectly like Bondage) Gore to task.
http://www.youtube.com/v/5QqplPfYTE8

3:50 is where it's at.......p-)

[GregHJ]

Well, he wouldn't be the first politician to fudge the truth in order to make a point; he clearly screwed up on this one. However, Al Gore is not a scientist and as such I would take everything he says with a grain of salt. But, it's not like Al Gore single hand idly destroyed the veracity of climate change, which the vast majority of scientists agree is happening. There are over six billion of us on this planet, you can't say we don't have any effect on the earth with all of the crap we pump into the atmosphere. I'm not ruling out the earth's natural cycle, or that of the sun either, but to sya we aren't even partly responsible is just downright stupidity.

[beNder]

He invented the internet, he must be a scientist.

[beNder]

http://www.youtube.com/v/fooYtalS9Gc

[gazell]

Did he present a 10-year-old report? Lol. Someone might have been trying to screw him and the conference, even though there seems to be little need.

On the other hand, some scientists as of late think, that the ice sheet might well recover itself as a consequence of more snow fall because of warming. We do not know all details, this means nothing though.

[ChrisBV]

http://www.youtube.com/v/l-9WsKlKXJI

[gobdav]

So, is this "fresh data" or just a ballpark figure from a few years ago? Which is it? These people have some serious issues.

[SBL]

On the other hand, some scientists as of late think, that the ice sheet might well recover itself as a consequence of more snow fall because of warming. We do not know all details, this means nothing though.
Hmm, yes of course!

[IMTT]

Al Gore; the hero of the left, enviroment fear millioniare and all around moron again validates general public opinion of him.

Of greater concern will the USA give away several billion dollars to China and "developing nations" for emmision reduction via Mr. Obama? What the heck just add it to our mounting bill. Soon if this keeps up we will be a developing nation. Then who will the rest of the world have to blame or come crying to about their problems.

[gazell]

Hmm, yes of course!

Sounds a good smash, but it isn't. We just do not know the details of how it is exactly going to happen in particular places at any given time. That does not change a thing about the fact of climate change, how it works out here and there is another matter.

And yes, warming causes more precipitation. It needs to be mild to snow in winter, if you live in such place, you know that from experience.

[SBL]

Sounds a good smash, but it isn't. We just do not know the details of how it is exactly going to happen in particular places at any given time. That does not change a thing about the fact of climate change, how it works out here and there is another matter.

And yes, warming causes more precipitation. It needs to be mild to snow in winter, if you live in such place, you know that from experience.
Well, it's a good thing that's the case, otherwise some people might come away looking awfully foolish.

[eskachig]

Al Gore; the hero of the left, enviroment fear millioniare and all around moron again validates general public opinion of him.
Al Gore is not the hero of the left.

This article says nothing of substance about anything, other than going on about how a celebrity added some hyperbole to his speech.

[IMTT]

Ok Al Gore is not the hero of the left according to you the left.

[Wimbly]

Al Gore is not the hero of the left.

This article says nothing of substance about anything, other than going on about how a celebrity added some hyperbole to his speech.

Hes more than just a celebrity. His nonsense rantings are forced on our children in schools across the country.

[Chulo]

Ok Al Gore is not the hero of the left according to you the left.
Well you dont just get a Nobel prize for nothing...

oh wait... you do

[eskachig]

Ok Al Gore is not the hero of the left according to you the left.
Makes more sense than being a hero of the left according to the right.

Hes more than just a celebrity. His nonsense rantings are forced on our children in schools across the country.Do you have a specific case? I was unaware al gore made it in the textbooks.

[hsh2]

Al Gore; the hero of the left, enviroment fear millioniare and all around moron again validates general public opinion of him.


Sums it up perfectly, but I think he's a billionaire by now or in process of becoming one.

Rebranding of the century.

[Chulo]

Do you have a specific case? I was unaware al gore made it in the textbooks.
"Inconvenient truth" being shown in schools, and advocacy of the global warming threat as the truth.

[gazell]

Well, it's a good thing that's the case, otherwise some people might come away looking awfully foolish.

Yes, as I said before, it's likely that it was set up for just that.

[Panchito12]

Damn, I was hoping that someone would call Al's bluff.

[Wimbly]

Do you have a specific case? I was unaware al gore made it in the textbooks.

Its been required viewing in most US, UK and Canadian schools as far as I know. My little brother (now in 8th grade) is forced to watch the video in several of his classes, year after year.

[IMTT]

In order to get Noble you first have to share the world veiw of the awarding counsel and be a socialist regardless of achievment. I believe this is more a politcal accolade award then an achievement. No longer has to do with peace of or the intent of Mr. Noble.

[Clayton Gold]

We need Dee Snider to take on this battle and once again take Al and Tipper(I secrectly like Bondage) Gore to task.
...

3:50 is where it's at.......p-)

haha ! X2

Dee will sort him out right quick !

[HellToupee]

Wouldn't al gore be a hero of the right? Able to take a movement of preservation and use it for capitalistic means :)

[cascade]

According to NASA Mars is suffering from global warming, but no people, cars, industry or methane producing livestock.

[IMTT]

We need Dee Snider to take on this battle and once again take Al and Tipper(I secrectly like Bondage) Gore to task.
http://www.youtube.com/v/5QqplPfYTE8

3:50 is where it's at.......p-)


Great video. Ok Al Gore is a hero of the right wing and the left at the same time. Now I'm really confused... Lets just call him a profiting w-ore. No wonder he couldn't get elected.

[koevoetconstable]

No doubt Gore took a private jet to Denmark, spewing tons of carbon into the atmoshpere. That moron Ed Begley, who actually BELIEVES in man-made global warming, would have swam over to lessen his carbon footprint.

[Muddlers]

Reliability of the article seems to be a bit bias.

[eskachig]

"Inconvenient truth" being shown in schools,That movie is in no way part of the curriculum, but I imagine many teachers think it's an entertaining attention grabber with just enough science in it to get kids thinking. Never actually seen it myself.


and advocacy of the global warming threat as the truth.That has nothing to do with al gore.

[budgie]

Gore may not be the best spokesperson given his intense unpopulaity and certainly gets his facts wrong. But this is just another convenient untruth for the Right: Al Gore's a bastard, so global warming is bunk.

Meanwhile the vast majority of the scientific community agree the earth is warming and only a few-paid industry spokespeople with PhDs are arguing back. Of course in America, if you're a conservative, you don't care about the climate - that's un-American apparently. Or at least that's the crap the energy industry has sold you on.

Happy pollution: while the rest of the developed world at least tries to fix the problem, just under 50% of Americans still insist there isn't one.

[Chulo]

Gore may not be the best spokesperson given his intense unpopulaity and certainly gets his facts wrong. But this is just another convenient untruth for the Right: Al Gore's a bastard, so global warming is bunk.

Meanwhile the vast majority of the scientific community agree the earth is warming and only a few-paid industry spokespeople with PhDs are arguing back. Of course in America, if you're a conservative, you don't care about the climate - that's un-American apparently. Or at least that's the crap the energy industry has sold you on.

Happy pollution: while the rest of the developed world at least tries to fix the problem, just under 50% of Americans still insist there isn't one.

Im a Conservative, I do care about the environment, just dont believe that it is all because of man that there is climate change. I believe in the natural progression and that while the climate will and is changing, man has very little to do with it. And im sure there are many that have the same view.

Apparently the liberals just put anyone they dont agree with into one general group and use the most extreme view to identify them.


vast majority of the scientific community agree the earth is warming and only a few-paid A vast number that agree with global warming is also on the take

and evidently to your reasoning, all these are too http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

[11 Bravo]

the vast majority of scientists agree is happening. just downright stupidity.

Do you want to back that downright stupid statement up ?. Vast majority you say.. me thinks you have been drinking the koolaide.

[11 Bravo]

. That does not change a thing about the fact of climate change, how it works out here and there is another matter.

And yes, warming causes more precipitation. It needs to be mild to snow in winter, if you live in such place, you know that from experience.

So wait a minute here gazelli.... there is a FACT about climate change?. And how it works is what now ?. Oh yeah junk effing science...I gotcha now.

And warming causes precipitation to the point needing to be "mild" to snow... what the hell have you been smoking ?. I've been in some parts of the world where it snowed in lets say mega below zero for days to weeks at a time you bafoon !. Take your buddy algoreski for a long walk off a short peir already !.

[Zarak]

Do you want to back that downright stupid statement up ?. Vast majority you say.. me thinks you have been drinking the koolaide.

...I'm a skeptic and even I know that Global Warming is the current scientific consensus. :|

[ahab]

The crux of the argument is if it's man made or not...of course the Earth is warming, anybody can tell you that. Can you explain the sunspot minimum we're in? Can you account for the medieval warming period? Compare that with our current temperature data..if you should be scared of anything it should be global cooling.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10may_longrange.htm

[HellToupee]

And warming causes precipitation to the point needing to be "mild" to snow... what the hell have you been smoking ?. I've been in some parts of the world where it snowed in lets say mega below zero for days to weeks at a time you bafoon !. Take your buddy algoreski for a long walk off a short peir already !.

What a scientific approach... Its place like Antarctica not where people live, where its so cold humidity is close to 0% very very little snowfall. Don;t confuse a blizzard with snowing, blizzard is just strong winds blowing snow off the ground around.

[rhino]

damn reading comprehension, I was really looking forward to a vid of Gore's attempted suicide:-(

[gazell]

So wait a minute here gazelli.... there is a FACT about climate change?. And how it works is what now ?. Oh yeah junk effing science...I gotcha now.

And warming causes precipitation to the point needing to be "mild" to snow... what the hell have you been smoking ?. I've been in some parts of the world where it snowed in lets say mega below zero for days to weeks at a time you bafoon !. Take your buddy algoreski for a long walk off a short peir already !.

Bravo! A grand argument. :lol:

Yes, moisture content, temperature and precipitation are related. Not talking about summer temperatures, obviously...

And yes, some scientists now think, the ice sheet might recover. It has little to do with my person.

[eskachig]

A vast number that agree with global warming is also on the takeOn the take from who? What is this enormous shadowy entity that pays off nearly every scientist involved in climate research? That has simultaneously subverted every national science academy across the world regardless of politics? Even the Chinese national academy of sciences supports the global consensus.

and evidently to your reasoning, all these are too http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
The fact that someone actually compiled that list (and that it contains some completely unrelated people, physics? economics? wtf) should tell you something. There is no point in compiling the list of scientists who agree with the consensus - it would be almost everyone. Instead, once in a while they survey them:

A survey published in 2009 by Peter Doran and Maggie Zimmerman of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago of 3146 Earth Scientists found that 97% of active climatologists agree that human activity is causing global warming.[22]
In some ways it is even more instructive to survey the actual research too.

A 2004 essay by Naomi Oreskes in the journal Science reported a survey of 928 abstracts of peer-reviewed papers related to global climate change in the ISI database.[15] Oreskes claimed that "Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. ...

[maw]

Im a Conservative, I do care about the environment, just dont believe that it is all because of man that there is climate change. I believe in the natural progression and that while the climate will and is changing, man has very little to do with it. And im sure there are many that have the same view.

i myself am a pseudo-conservative. however, if you ignore the red herrings the science is pretty unequivocal. humans ARE altering the climate.


A vast number that agree with global warming is also on the take

and evidently to your reasoning, all these are too http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

"A new study by a team of political scientists and sociologists at the journal Environmental Politics concludes that 9 out of 10 books published since 1972 that have disputed the seriousness of environmental problems and mainstream science can be linked to a conservative think tank (CTT)."
where's the funding for these cct's? would you like a hint?
link:
http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/2008/06/ninety_percent_of_enviro_skept.php

[Chulo]

On the take from who? What is this enormous shadowy entity that pays off nearly every scientist involved in climate research? .
Its called self interest, you get money for what you study. However now that the source is tainted then all studies that have used that source information is suspect.

[HellToupee]

Its called self interest, you get money for what you study. However now that the source is tainted then all studies that have used that source information is suspect.

How come you then believe the skeptics? They also have a self interest and get backing from others eg oil companies.

[Currahee 1SG]

This is news to me, I had no clue that a climate change summit was going on. They should really put stuff like this in the papers.

[UltimaRatio]

On the take from who? What is this enormous shadowy entity that pays off nearly every scientist involved in climate research?

For example Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan are hugely interested in the growth of Cap and Trade and Carbon Credit exchanges. They have already made significant investments in these areas.


How come you then believe the skeptics? They also have a self interest and get backing from others eg oil companies.

Apparently the oil companies openly sponsor a lot of pro climate change research groups. Even CRU was on the payroll.

[gazell]

For example Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan are hugely interested in the growth of Cap and Trade and Carbon Credit exchanges. They have already made significant investments in these areas.



Apparently the oil companies openly sponsor a lot of pro climate change research groups. Even CRU was on the payroll.

Climate science existed before Carbon Credits. The scientists have not much to do with it, it's politics and business, quite often benefitting those, whom it should not. For example there is some coal based plant running as 'zero emission', which of course it isn't. This system does not work well.

[Red_Fern]

Al Gore shot himself in the foot with his climate change argument a long time ago...this is not fresh news. rofl

[UltimaRatio]

Climate science existed before Carbon Credits.

Too bad that today it is impossible to separate business from science. Especially climate science and the "science" is booming.

[gazell]

^^ True, sadly. Scientific, political and business arguments are mixed in a mess.

[shoora]

^^ True, sadly. Scientific, political and business arguments are mixed in a mess.
First of all it is business, then politics. But science related to this only because it is now easy to get money grants for anything with words "climate" and "warming" in title.
Compare titles "Influence of global warming to mating habits of pandas" and "Mating habits of pandas". Which is more likely to get funding?
From business prospective it is $1 trillion market of Carbon credits for the start, next bubble of investments in "green" technology and stimulation of market for such things.
And this will put on hold development of third world countries, which is important for politics.

[Connaught Ranger]

Al Gore shoots self,

One can but wish . . . . . . . .

[gazell]

First of all it is business, then politics. But science related to this only because it is now easy to get money grants for anything with words "climate" and "warming" in title.
Compare titles "Influence of global warming to mating habits of pandas" and "Mating habits of pandas". Which is more likely to get funding?
From business prospective it is $1 trillion market of Carbon credits for the start, next bubble of investments in "green" technology and stimulation of market for such things.
And this will put on hold development of third world countries, which is important for politics.

Yes, I agree on quite a lot of that, however this is not a scientific argument and does not change any such facts or situation of the climate. That's what we are exactly talking about.

Please, do not think, that with such political opinion you are putting forward a smashing argument that holds water against climate change.

You are politically opinionated and concerned, how it's handled and conducted - which is fine -, it does not change anything about the degrees and other bother though.

[Dan2004]

damn reading comprehension, I was really looking forward to a vid of Gore's attempted suicide:-(

Yeah. This thread's been a real downer. :-(

Of course, Mr. Snore probably wouldn't have shot himself, what with guns being the root of all evil and suffering in the world:roll:, rather just beat his head against a wall or sucked on a tailpipe or something. *sigh* A man can dream though...

[kkbou]

The crux of the argument is if it's man made or not...of course the Earth is warming, anybody can tell you that. Can you explain the sunspot minimum we're in? Can you account for the medieval warming period? Compare that with our current temperature data..if you should be scared of anything it should be global cooling.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7b/Temp-sunspot-co2.svg/1000px-Temp-sunspot-co2.svg.png

[rhodtpr]

Sounds a good smash, but it isn't. We just do not know the details of how it is exactly going to happen in particular places at any given time. That does not change a thing about the fact of climate change, how it works out here and there is another matter.

And yes, warming causes more precipitation. It needs to be mild to snow in winter, if you live in such place, you know that from experience.

I guess that depends on what you consider "mild" - all I can tell you is, in my part of the world it needs to be below freezing to snow. Minus 0 degrees Celcius or minus 32 degrees Farenheight? Take your pic...they are still pretty cold to me!:roll:

[gazell]

I guess that depends on what you consider "mild" - all I can tell you is, in my part of the world it needs to be below freezing to snow. Minus 0 degrees Celcius or minus 32 degrees Farenheight? Take your pic...they are still pretty cold to me!:roll:

My bad. I did not realise, I was talking to people who would assume snow happens that often above 0 C.

And these kind of guys overuse this particular smilie all over the board in my experience.

Look, winter, especially at night - as it does not need much science to it necessarily - cloudy: mild, clear: freezing. Without clouds there is not gonna be much precipitation. Also, the quality of snow, changes by temperature from the slushy sleet through a good fluffy snowball stuff to the dry powdery thing that is easily drifted. Less moisture content as we go along.

In the big picture, cloud cover and high humidity are accelerators of warming. Are we there now?

[shoora]

Yes, I agree on quite a lot of that, however this is not a scientific argument and does not change any such facts or situation of the climate. That's what we are exactly talking about.

Please, do not think, that with such political opinion you are putting forward a smashing argument that holds water against climate change.

You are politically opinionated and concerned, how it's handled and conducted - which is fine -, it does not change anything about the degrees and other bother though.
I agree with everything you say. My concern is lie of some high profile guys.
I totally agree that we need to change our habits to consume less resources. It is for our good. And I can assume climate shift. But I am not convinced with anthropogenic nature of it. More likely any change in our climate is because of solar activity. If it is true, we may not expect any effect from our counter climate change measures.
On my age I observed DuPont "Ozone and Freon fraud", "The Great Asbestos Scam". So, I preserve my right for doubt this time.

[Jobu]

It's too bad there has been so much nonsense attached to the global warming hysteria.

It would have been nice to actually have reliable temperature records that one could view with confidence. We don't have that now. What we have is a group of "warmists" who have dedicated their careers to an idea that whatever is actually happening, the only conclusion is that man is causing the Earth to warm.

-They do not share their methods
-They do not share their data
-They have been encouraging each other to delete inconvenient records
-They have been banding together to shut all "non-believers" out of the debate
-etc.


Sorry folks, that's not science. By very definition it fails to be science because it lacks integrity.

What we have in the "warmist" phenomenon is what Feynman called cargo cult science.

[budgie]

This circle of warmists do share their methods -I don't know which blog that nonsense came from. While there obviously have been some irregularities committed by a few scientists, they have hardly managed to turn the whole idea of global warming on its head. Average temperatures have risen by most accounts and most developed governments, thank God, are willing to take steps, even if they can't agree what steps these should be.

I charge that any hysteria is on the other side. While the world goes on calmly trying to solve environmental problems (Al Gore aside) a small minority (The American Right) and industry funded, non peer-reviewed 'psuedo scientists' are screaming at the top of their lungs that it isn't happening. Good luck.

A quick roundup of how the energy industry pays to keep the debate open so they don't have to pay more to clean up their act:

'Research groups' funded by Exxon-Mobil:

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/index.php?mapid=831

Use of think tanks and lobbyists:

http://members.greenpeace.org/blog/exxonsecrets

In bed with the Right:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/15148655/the_secret_campaign_of_president_bushs_administration_to_deny_global_warming/3

GOP mantra against global warming:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/26/opinion/main2608369.shtml

Denial industry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

And for those who say climate change is a money spinner for greenies bear in mind there was a larger group before climate change was identified who stood to lose far more money than a few green startups will ever make: the Energy industry. And they already had politicians on their side.

For those who say it is a cult I charge the reverse. Anti-global warming movements are the fringle group, those that have diverged from accepted scientific wisdom. Far from being a bunch of future Galileo's, thay are simply making money off right-wing hysteria stirred up by a bunch of demaggues who have their followers convinced it is their 'conservative' duty to argue against everything those wishy-washy liberals stand for.

And yeah the paltry few examples I've provided are small right? That's because that's about it: a handful of 'researchers' and think tanks rallying around a politically motivated nucleus. It sure looks like a cult to me.

Well the American right can cry all it wants while the rest of the world fixes the problem - or at least tries to. But the question of whether global warming even exists, lives on only in the imaginations of a desperate few who just don't want to change their ways.

[Jobu]

This circle of warmists do share their methods

Right, they share their methods only with each other with a wink and a nod.

[chauncy republicans]

A quick roundup of how the energy industry pays to keep the debate open so they don't have to pay more to clean up their act:

LOL!
Return to the index page (http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php) | Earlier Emails (http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=170) | Later Emails (http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=172)
From: "Mick Kelly" <m.kelly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Shell
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 13:31:00 +0100
Reply-to: m.kelly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: t.oriordan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, t.o'riordan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Mike
Had a very good meeting with Shell yesterday. Only a minor part of the
agenda, but I expect they will accept an invitation to act as a strategic
partner and will contribute to a studentship fund though under certain
conditions. I now have to wait for the top-level soundings at their end
after the meeting to result in a response. We, however, have to discuss
asap what a strategic partnership means, what a studentship fund is, etc,
etc. By email? In person?
I hear that Shell's name came up at the TC meeting. I'm ccing this to Tim
who I think was involved in that discussion so all concerned know not to
make an independent approach at this stage without consulting me!
I'm talking to Shell International's climate change team but this approach
will do equally for the new foundation as it's only one step or so off
Shell's equivalent of a board level. I do know a little about the Fdn and
what kind of projects they are looking for. It could be relevant for the
new building, incidentally, though opinions are mixed as to whether it's
within the remit.
Regards
Mick
______________________________________________

Mick Kelly Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ
United Kingdom
Tel: 44-1603-592091 Fax: 44-1603-507784
Email: m.kelly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/tiempo/

[chauncy republicans]

Rex Tillerson:
Now, some people have suggested that a revenue-neutral carbon tax has no chance of gaining sufficient support in Congress to become law. They say a carbon tax is too politically sensitive and that it is easier and more politically expedient to support a cap-and-trade approach, because the public will never figure out where it is hitting them. They will just know they hurt somewhere in their pocketbook.
I disagree with this assessment. I believe the American people want climate policy to be transparent, honest, and effective. Economists generally agree that achieving a given emissions target costs less under a tax or fee approach than under a cap-and-trade system. I firmly believe it is not too late for Congress to consider a carbon tax as the better policy approach for addressing the risks of climate change. Indeed, there has never been a more opportune time for Congress to pursue this course of action.

[chauncy republicans]

Ken Cohen, Exxon’s vice president for public affairs, pounded a couple of the oil giant’s big themes in a conference call today: Support for a carbon tax (http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/10/02/exxons-tillerson-forget-cap-and-trade-carbon-tax-is-the-answer/) and advocacy for natural gas.
Exxon, he said, wants a climate policy that creates “certainty and predictability, which is why we advocate a carbon tax…volatile carbon prices under cap-and-trade would undermine the ability to invest in advanced technologies,” as well as create economic inefficiencies and the potential for market problems.
He also gave a shout out to the role that natural gas—hey, it’s a fossil fuel—could play in the nation’s energy future. “The environmental advantages of natural gas are not always well understood.” Using more gas for power generation, he said, “is one of the most effective and lowest cost measures” to reduce carbon emissions. “We need an energy policy that recognizes that.”

Budgie the gullible, he'll believe anything he reads on the dailykos.

[UltimaRatio]

Well the American right can cry all it wants while the rest of the world fixes the problem - or at least tries to. But the question of whether global warming even exists, lives on only in the imaginations of a desperate few who just don't want to change their ways.

Sure. But remember not to look back at the developing countries as their economies crash and burn.

The 30% reduction of emissions expected from my country will require circa EUR 90 bn (around 4.5 bn per annum). The government budget for this fiscal year was EUR 52 bn. In this case the brunt of the required investments will have to be covered by the government. With what? Funds from healthcare, social security?

Want change? Lead the way. In the mean time, please stay the F... away from my money!

[gazell]

LOL!
Return to the index page (http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php) | Earlier Emails (http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=170) | Later Emails (http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=172)
From: "Mick Kelly" <m.kelly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Shell
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 13:31:00 +0100
Reply-to: m.kelly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: t.oriordan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, t.o'riordan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Mike
Had a very good meeting with Shell yesterday. Only a minor part of the
agenda, but I expect they will accept an invitation to act as a strategic
partner and will contribute to a studentship fund though under certain
conditions. I now have to wait for the top-level soundings at their end
after the meeting to result in a response. We, however, have to discuss
asap what a strategic partnership means, what a studentship fund is, etc,
etc. By email? In person?
I hear that Shell's name came up at the TC meeting. I'm ccing this to Tim
who I think was involved in that discussion so all concerned know not to
make an independent approach at this stage without consulting me!
I'm talking to Shell International's climate change team but this approach
will do equally for the new foundation as it's only one step or so off
Shell's equivalent of a board level. I do know a little about the Fdn and
what kind of projects they are looking for. It could be relevant for the
new building, incidentally, though opinions are mixed as to whether it's
within the remit.
Regards
Mick
______________________________________________

Mick Kelly Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ
United Kingdom
Tel: 44-1603-592091 Fax: 44-1603-507784
Email: m.kelly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/tiempo/

Apart from it being a stolen, private e-mail, none of us has any rights to as it does not contain treasonous information, what is the point, you are trying to make here?

Nine-year-old also, mind, just to make it more relevant to current climate science and environmental efforts.

[Chulo]

Apart from it being a stolen, private e-mail, none of us has any rights to as it does not contain treasonous information, what is the point, you are trying to make here?

Nine-year-old also, mind, just to make it more relevant to current climate science and environmental efforts.
Treasonous to who?

[SBL]

Nine-year-old also, mind, just to make it more relevant to current climate science and environmental efforts.
Nine years is a comparative blip on the meteorlogical epoch, is it not?

[gazell]

Nine years is a comparative blip on the meteorlogical epoch, is it not?

Eh? What it has to do with anything at all, and now?

[gazell]

Treasonous to who?

Tell me, how a guy talking about a possible job above there with Shell, is any of public concern.

[Chulo]

Tell me, how a guy talking about a possible job above there with Shell, is any of public concern.
You stated it was not Treasonous, i just want to know to who?

[gazell]

You stated it was not Treasonous, i just want to know to who?

I only said that, as I think that importance would excuse for hacking.

Otherwise, to nobody. A guy is talking about a possible job, what is the big deal here?

[eskachig]

I only said that, as I think that importance would excuse for hacking.
Otherwise, to nobody. A guy is talking about a possible job, what is the big deal here?A scientific institution looking for sponsors? Outrage!

[gazell]

A scientific institution looking for sponsors? Outrage!

Was it sponsors? I thought it was a job. Well, does not make much difference, really. It is an attack on human race in either case.:lol: