Struth JD, how many errors can one bloke make in one post.

""Where's the evidence?""

No. The question was which evidence WTF was using, for reasons already stated. Do try to keep up. I already knew that there were many lines of evidence for this so he could have been using one or more of many. Although I would point out that most of the articles written about that I've seen were ultimately based on the 'Carbon Brief' analysis. (I'd also note that WTF hasn't told us his sources which suggested he was just regurgitating an assertion from one of the China-apologist sites he seems to frequent.)

"The US reductions....[are] based on the same level of emissions tracking [as China]."

Precisely. But I was talking about a 20yr trend in the USA data which rather was my point, which, if you look up, you'll going over your head.

"then criticise China for modernising".
Criticising China?? ?? Where? Do you just make this rubbish up or are you truly that incapable of understanding a train of thought?
Far from criticising it, I hope it continues and even accelerates. The more comfortable life becomes for the Chinese, the less likely they will be to risk it in foreign adventures like Formosa.

"And citing an old Carbon Brief article to try to "gotcha" a newer Carbon Brief article isn't the slam dunk you think it is. It just shows you'll use a source you don't trust when it suits your angle."

Where do you get the daffy notion that I don't trust 'Carbon Brief'. I use them regularly (which is how I knew about the article I linked) and accept their data is better than most and based on a relatively unbiased, non-ideological assessment.

"what bothers you isn't the data - it's that the transition might actually be working."

Factual data never bothers me. And if the transition to a non-carbon world is working, I'd hate to see it when its failing.

Struth, mhaze!

You say "how many errors can one bloke make," yet almost every paragraph of your reply moves the goalposts, rewrites your own position, or attacks a straw man.

Let's walk through it...

//The question was which evidence WTF was using...//

You may frame it that way now, but your original comment was a classic "gotcha" setup - "Evidence?" - short and simple for maximum impact. No mention of Carbon Brief or any qualifier, just mock-doubt.

If you knew about the reports and wanted a specific citation, you could have asked for one. You didn't. So claiming hindsight clarity is… convenient.

//I was talking about a 20yr trend in the USA data which rather was my point...//

And yet you used that long-term US trend to imply China's recent flattening isn't meaningful - a false equivalence. The entire point was that China's emissions are now flat despite demand growth - unlike the US trend, which heavily relied on economic shifts and outsourcing emissions. You used that as a comparative dismissal, not just a separate point.

//Criticising China?? Where?//

You framed their emissions plateau as irrelevant to climate action:

"...doesn't say anything about their adherence to the CO2 jihad..."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10681#373050

You also described climate concern as "the climate change mantra," and framed emissions changes purely as a function of becoming "a modern industrial nation." That's not neutrality. It's minimising and mockery.

//Where do you get the daffy notion that I don't trust Carbon Brief?//

From over a year of forum posts where you mock mainstream climate sources.

But even if we accept your claim here, you cited an old Carbon Brief article as a "gotcha" while ignoring their most recent emissions analysis, which showed the plateau. That's cherry-picking - by your own standards.

//If the transition... is working, I'd hate to see it when it's failing.//

Flat emissions in the world's largest economy, despite demand increases, led by renewables, is what a bumpy transition looks like - not failure, just not perfection.

Your problem isn't with the data. It's with what the data implies.

JD,

I'm guessing the math is too difficult for you. Because calculations about level of emissions are so nebulous and open to significant error in a particular year, they should only be used in a multi-year scale. Thus I spoke of the multi-decade trend in the US data as showing something of note, whereas a single year of Chinese data, while it may well represent and inflexion point, can't be definitively said to do so.

Apparently, because I often critique alarmist sites and data, that means I dislike ALL sites that support the CAGW theory? In trying to explain how utterly bonkers that type of thinking is, my vocabulary, I'm afraid, fails me.

BTW I hate Revolution 9 on side 4 of the White Album. Apparently that proves I hate The Beatles.

Just for clarification, Carbon Brief is a reputable site that does good honest work with little overt bias. They lean alarmist but not overly so and gather their data in an unbiased fashion. I visit the site regularly since the only way to follow the entire issue is to read advocates from both sides.

There was no maths, mhaze.

//I'm guessing the math is too difficult for you.//

There was a trend - 18 months of emissions data, from multiple independent sources, showing a plateau in China's CO2 output despite rising demand. Your "math" insult is nothing more than a lazy segue into goalpost shifting. You dismissed the data when it was first raised. Now that it's clear and consistent, you declare that nothing counts unless it's spread across multiple decades.

You then frame this as some kind of elevated epistemological position - one you claim I'm too slow to grasp. But really, it's just a rhetorical parachute. Had the data shown a sharp rise in emissions instead of a plateau, we both know you wouldn't be demanding a multi-decade average before drawing conclusions.

//Apparently, because I often critique alarmist sites and data, that means I dislike ALL sites that support the CAGW theory?//

No.

The issue is your track record of dismissing mainstream climate sources - until you find an older post from one that suits your point. Then suddenly they're valid. Your use of a dated Carbon Brief article to discredit their more recent emissions analysis wasn't an act of balanced inquiry. It was cherry-picking.

//BTW I hate Revolution 9 on side 4 of the White Album. Apparently that proves I hate The Beatles.//

No. Terrible analogy.

You didn't say you disliked one Carbon Brief article - you used one against another, and ignored their latest findings entirely.

That's not selective taste. It's strategic omission.

for crying out loud. How'd any of you know what's going on in China ? Some of you can't even grasp what's going on here !

John, can you please stop embarrassing the Trumpster, the poor boy will once again have to get out of the sandpit and go home, with yet another bloodied nose from you. This is too embarrassing for the kid.

Trumpster, on another subject, there have been embarrassing emails dropped from the paedophile Epstein about his fellow traveller, your man Donald. Anything to say?