I know it would be painful for you bonmot, but try JoNava.

Her blog should be required reading for all aspiring warmers. You would then at least have some idea of what's coming to get you.

I should have known, hasbeen. You confirm your bias from an anti-global warming blogger that takes out of context the published science (and whatever) to push her ideological agenda.

By the way, it's Jo Nova (can't be a typo - perhaps you were just gazing her navel) - and like most commenters here, Nova is not her real name.

I do drop into her blog-site now and then but personally, I prefer to get my info from the primary source - you know, the real scientists who publish their findings in real journals - not denialist blog sites.

You should try it sometime (you say you're a scientist after all). I'll ask again, can you link to the scientific paper that says;

>> excess CO2 is coming not from the the developed world <<

Really, I am interested in seeing where Jo Nova (and all her groupies) have taken it out of context.

The ins and outs of exactly where the carbon is coming from is for another article, for now we should all note that the Clean Development Mechanism was in its early years simply a rort. Everyone can agree on that now. Emerging economy developers were paid money for projects that were doubtful, or would have gone ahead anyway for the supposed carbon credits. Refrigeration industries were started simply so that they could claim the CDM money for destroying the byproducts.

The CDM's act has been cleaned up a lot, but its efforts probably do little more than illustrate how hard it is to buy genuine carbon credits overseas. But for African nations it has proved a pot of gold. No wonder they want to keep the developed nations hard at this business of reducing emissions

Shot yourself in the foot Bon Mot. No-one who has a strong case resorts to personal abuse.

Jo Nova's real name is Joanne Codling - she took Nova as a stage name. There's no intention to hide her real identity as there is with Bon Mot. I guess you'll be impugning the singing of Dame Nellie Melba because her real name was actually Helen Porter Mitchell.

When you man up and tell us your real identity then you'll be on a stronger, but still faulty, footing on this argument.

Actually, I suggest you go and check her blog today. Interesting peer-reviewed paper that she references which has a 2500 year tree ring reconstruction from China. Looks little like Michael Mann's hockey stick effort. You might come back and tell us how the two can be reconciled. The Chinese reconstruction looks pretty much like what everyone thought the world's climate had been, before Mann's effort introduce the false idea it is unusually hot at the moment.

I think the point about emissions is actually that the countries that claim to have decreased, or controlled, their emissions, can only do that because they've exported emissions to countries like China and India which now do their manufacturing for them, as well as their emissions. Anyone who's been reading the literature would know about this issue, but I guess if you spend your time reading blogs that confirm your prejudice you might have missed it.

Graham,

We're all attracted to blogs that confirm our prejudice....and that includes skeptics.

Wonder if you saw this recently.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-12-05/global-emissions-on-the-rise/3712166

"Overall atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is now at its highest for 800,000 years."

Why do you impugn the integrity of posters who choose to post under a pseudonym? It's your site and you provide that particular mechanism.

Poirot quotes

'Overall atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is now at its highest for 800,000 years."

And I am sure that they could measure carbon dioxide rates back then. No wonder it is called junk science and that is being kind. Talk about a blind religion.