China Sets Goals For CO2 Emission Cuts
Tweet
Wall Street Journal* reports:
China aims to cut carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP by up to 45% by 2020 from 2005 levels.
That seems like a good idea.
ALSO: The world seems to be taking cues from the American president, and not the latest oil-industry fueled FUD about climate change research. Good.
* Just think, in the future you won’t be able to find that information on Google but on blogs like this instead. Go for it, Rupert!
33 Responses to “China Sets Goals For CO2 Emission Cuts”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
That assumes that people would be searching for that information.
Hey, a monolithic Communist government sets long-term goals. I feel SO much better — I remember all the “Five Year Plans” that the Soviet Union kept pushing out, and we all remember how those all came true, right?
And I guess it escaped your attention, Oliver, but in those e-mails were discussions of how to exclude heretics from the “peer review process,” how to evade a Freedom Of Information request (including such tactics as retroactively declaring some e-mails “personal, private and confidential” and wholesale deletion of certain topics), and one guy’s three-year struggle to run the original data through the original software model and get the same results as originally.
“Climate Science” is turning out to be a lot closer to “political science” or “boxing, the sweet science” than astronomy or physics or chemistry. Or, perhaps, a mirror image of “Christian Science.”
“oil-industry fueled FUD “? As opposed to government/foundation grant fueled bullshit.
Read the programmers notes who were writing the code for the computer models –
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/climategate-hide-the-decline-codified/
It’s garbage in, garbage out.
“Science works by one person making a claim, and backing it up with the data and methods that they used to make the claim. Other scientists then attack the claim by (among other things) trying to replicate the first scientist’s work. If they can’t replicate it, it doesn’t stand. So blocking the FOIA allowed Phil Jones to claim that his temperature record (HadCRUT3) was valid science.”
“This is not just trivial gamesmanship, this is central to the very idea of scientific inquiry. This is an attack on the heart of science, by keeping people who disagree with you from ever checking your work and seeing if your math is correct.”
Until all of the data and methodologies are made public, global warming is bullshit. Peer review means nothing when it’s only your buddies rubber stamping your “science”.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/24/the-people-vs-the-cru-freedom-of-information-my-okole…/
Anyone that still believes China is a big old communist government has clearly not read a newspaper or watched the news for 20 years.
Cons will never believe in global warming because it’s not in the Bible
But it is….Noah’s Ark in the Book of Genesis.
Well …..kind of.
So. A researcher plays a little fast and loose with his own work, and suddenly it’s the downfall of the entire climate change model as determined by thousands of scientists. Thank you, Anonymous Russian Hacker!! Without this guys e-mails, the truth of the multinational conspiracy to destroy America and drain us of our pure essence would never have been revealed. Who knew East Anglia hated us so?
Whatever. I knew I shouldn’t have looked at this topic before leaving for Turkey Day, but honestly, the Warming Hoaxers are one step above Intelligent Design ‘theorists’.
People don’t look to avoid a Freedom of Information request — to the point of deleting e-mails — unless they have something to hide.
Something like, say, that they can’t back up all their claims.
Claims that are the linchpin of the biggest AGW studies and models and arguments.
Claims that they won’t document, won’t allow anyone to doublecheck, and they can’t replicate.
O, you wanna argue that China’s government isn’t a huge, totalitarian regime? That the average Chinese citizen doesn’t have much of their lives controlled by that government? Yeah, they’ve slacked off on the economic side a smidgen — out of necessity — but they still run their people’s lives to an obscene degree.
That same government says they are “setting goals” on reducing emissions to a certain percentage of their GDP in a bit over a decade? There’s a nice little weasel there already — they can jigger their reported GDP however they wish to make the CO2 numbers look better.
They could also just lie.
The “thousands of scientists” were basing their conclusions on this one
University’s data. If the data was wrong (or “hidden”), then that would render those thousands of scientist’s conclusions invalid, until such time that the ACTUAL data can be evaluated. No?
Even if the data is faulty is it still wrong to try to preserve the Earth?
We should still make changes in the way we live.
The “thousands of scientists” were basing their conclusions on this one
University’s data.
No, they weren’t. There are multiple sources of data to show that the average temperature of the Earth has risen, and that CO2 concentrations are well-correlated with the industrial revolution. No scientist worth his or her salt – nevermind “thousands” – would base their conclusions on a single data set, without corroborating evidence or a reexamination of the data. For one thing, as a culture we’re just too damned competitive.
The “thousands of scientists” were basing their conclusions on this one University’s data.
Groan. Do you understand the way science works at ALL, Farris?
We should still make changes in the way we live.
Correct, but sadly this kind of comment just bounces off wingnuts’ heads.
I think the answer is self-evident.
I’m just old enough to remember the “coming ice age” hysteria of the 70s. Imagine how things would have been if everyone — in good faith — all started doing everything they could to head off global cooling at the time.
Before we inflict grave harm on our economy and our way of life, shouldn’t we be certain the people pushing it have it right, and aren’t just looking to line their pockets? (Al Gore, I’m looking at YOU here.)
No, cons will never believe global warming because Algore believes it.
Also, it implies that there might be something more important than maximizing corporate profits, and we just can’t have that, can we?
If you remember the “‘coming ice age’ hysteria” of the 1970s, you should remember that there WAS no hysteria. Just a cover story on Time or Newsweek, I don’t recall which, and a few articles here and there. Nothing like the near-unanimous scientific consensus on climate change we have today.
Amazing what a well ordered society of repressed people can accomplish when consensus is imposed from above. It’s really a capitalist’s wet dream, China is.
People don’t look to avoid a Freedom of Information request — to the point of deleting e-mails — unless they have something to hide.
Well, if you’re talking about the Bush administration, you’re probably right.
If I’m Al Gore, I could
a) Join up a few corporate boards and make billions of dollars.
b) Push scientific research, make a powerpoint presentation, form a nonprofit, lecture, lobby politicians in the hopes of pushing legislation. And then make a couple of investments that might make some money.
Somehow you guys think that Gore has chosen path b, which is far less profitable and involves much more work.
Don’t any of you people seem the least bit concerned about what these people have done? They basically did with scientific research what people did at Emcon, Worldcom and Tyco with their accounting and yet you guys are covering your ears and shouting “LA LA LA LA LA!!!” and trying to shrug it off as nothing. It’s unreal. How many global warming alarmists have parroted the findings of IPCC report? A report we now know is bullshit.
And CJ, yes we can make changes to the way we live, but if we have crap like the Kyoto Treaty, ‘Cap and Trade’ and proposed energy taxes being based on data that has been corrupted (and those claiming this is one little scientist are giving us another edition of the “LA LA LA LA LA LA!” dance) is 100% wrong.
Don’t any of you people seem the least bit concerned about what these people have done?
These people, Jay? One research group at a single university… if they have participated in research fraud (and I’m not convinced they have, at least not to the extent that would justify the hysteria), why does that tar the entire community of climate research?
An honest question: have you read a single analysis of the hacked emails by a reputable scientific source? Scientific American, the AAAS, Physics Today, or any independent, scientifically literate group?
A report we now know is bullshit.
Bullshit, Jay. Hacked out-of-context e-mails do not invalidate scientific research. Only further scientific research can do that. But you obviously don’t care anything about scientific research, you only care about validating your own prejudices, which you will do by any means necessary.
Joe, the new ice age thing of the 1970′s was the brain fart of one or two scientiests that was picked up on and flogged endlessly by a sensationalist popular media. In that case science did its job and the “global cooling” thesis was quickly dismissed.
That is far, far different from the international consensus of scientists that has developed over the last several decades on global warming.
What do the rest of the hacked emails say?
I’m just old enough to remember the “coming ice age” hysteria of the 70s.
Then you might also be going senile. There was no “hysteria.” There was like one lame article in Newsweek.
Bawk! Sorry Bruce Henry! Beat me to it.
The reduction in CO2 per unit of GDP is an interesting approach. It allows a developing economy to continue to grow, but restrains the growth of carbon emissions.
Sigh. Looks like we’ll be using Chinese smokestack scrubbers in a few years. Can’t we lead the way on anything except blowing stuff up anymore?
I’m just old enough to remember the “coming ice age” hysteria of the 70s.
I’m just old enough to remember that the first time I ever heard of the “coming ice age” hysteria of the 70s was from a right wing moron thirty years later screaming “But what about the ‘coming ice age’ hysteria of the 70s?!?!?!”
Only to add I remember being freaked out about killer bees.
I’ve never actually heard a convincing argument why controlling CO2 emissions would cause our economy to collapse. How does this follow? Our manufacturing base is shrinking, and going over seas. Our energy consuption is very high, but supplementing or replacing aging technologies with more efficient and less polluting methods can be implemented, and the retrofitting would add jobs.
It’s silly to dictate that we can’t do this, when other nations are looking to do it. Why is America so slow to adopt something that everyone else sees as a good idea?
Why is America so slow to adopt something that everyone else sees as a good idea?
If you don’t love America, then you can git out, hippie! U-S-A! U-S-A!
/wingnut
Pulled this from RealClimate, from Scienceblogs. He has 2 different posts on this. I can’t liky well, but…
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/