John Beardmore wrote:
In message , Orator
writes

Lloyd Parker wrote:


All the GH gases are equivalent to CO2 of 430 ppm.


Man, talk about spin-doctoring! How much are you getting paid for this?


Actually - all he's done to work out the meaning is read what's written.

Bull****! It is far far too simplistic, but then what else can one
expect from him?

Why can't you ?

I'm very good at doing that, and don't get taken in by raw flim-flam.


The "greenhouse gases" has been defines as "CO2" it is clear as clear
can be!


Where ?

In the text -more later.


The "equivalent to" refers to "parts per million (ppm)" - a measure!

Again in the unlikely event that it was intended as you say, it is no
less than scientific fraud to give a deliberate impression it is
solely CO2,


But they don't ! That's why they say "equivalent".

Oh yes they do say that in a footnote in barely readable size text! Then
they use "CO2e" as that. We know very well that "CO2" is Carbon dioxide
- the "e" is an unscientific private definition as other gasses cannot
be termed CO2! Who's ever heard of that notion in any event.

They use the comparison to CO2 alone:
"..compared with only 280ppm [CO2] before the Industrial Revolution."

....and this in the footnote:

"1 Referred to hereafter as CO2 equivalent, CO2e"

In other words, they imply a rise of 150ppm from "pre industrial
revolution" (whenever that was). This is a blatant lie as they don't
have a "pre-industrial" CO2e! It is a direct comparison to CO2 alone,
and assuming HONEST scientific reporting then the 430 must also be CO2
alone!

Nor do they tell, by what principles, or how they have worked out an
"equivalent" of other gases to CO2. I question the validity of such a
notion in any event. The source of each gas is different and has a
different remedy as a consequence.

and made even worse by then comparing it solely to CO2! It is _fraud_
on par with the Piltdown man!


Nonsense - it's just a way ox expressing the aggregate effect of a
basket of GHGs. There is nothing new here - at least not to those
familiar with the subject.

It is fraud and they focus on to use the singular "greenhouse gas" a
total of 22 times, and use "carbon" 87 times. They use "methane" 3
times, once in an explanatory term, once in "natural methane" and once
in a "the sky is falling" statement.

That is in the "executive summary" alone! So there is no question that
they have resorted to outright fraud on par with the Piltdown man!

Note these few examples of a number of such instances:
"...a direct result of rising carbon dioxide levels..."

"Costs will be incurred as the world shifts from a high-carbon to a
low-carbon trajectory...."

"...much as 75%, decarbonised by 2050 to stabilise at or below 550ppm CO2e"

"...of greenhouse-gas concentrations well beyond 750ppm CO2e,..."

"social costs of carbon on .... towards stabilisation at 550ppm CO2e,"

Then there are these kind of statements that requires close scrutiny:

A footnote in relation to temperatures: "5 All changes in global mean
temperature are expressed relative to pre-industrial levels (1750 - 1850)."

"Global mean temperatures" eh - bull****. That is nearing the end of the
Little Ice Age! If one is to believe the AGW muftis in this group then
it was only a "local" affair, not "global"! If one is to disregard the
AGW muftis it is still bogus as it is a comparison of temperatures from
winter to summer, and claiming "The sky is falling" because summer is
warmer than winter!

How on earth can this make any sense:

"To stabilise at 450ppm CO2e, without overshooting, global emissions
would need to peak in the next 10 years and then fall at more than 5%
per year, reaching 70% below current levels by 2050."

Current alleged "level" = 430, to "stabilise" at 450 requires -5%/annum
= 427.5 ppm first year!! In ONE year the concentration would be LESS
than their alleged "current" figure! If somehow the 450 ppm mysteriously
occurred instantaneously (little green men dumping their waste in our
atmosphere?) and that was the "current level".

If incremental reduction of 5%/annum did occur, then the 70% total
reduction is achieved in 23 years, or by 2029, 21 years before their
"suggested" time frame. The CO2 "equivalent" would by then be less than
half the "pre-industrial" CO2 alone was, or 135 ppm of CO2e! The
pre-industrial target is reached in less than 10 years!

What do they want to do, create an ice age?