The Climategate files were made public just a month ago, and the email messages that were revealed have already had real impact. The emails show us scientists being petty and political, even corrupt. Suppressing dissenting science and perhaps even violating the law to prevent data from being shared with the rest of the world. They show us people with failings, egos against egos. But the emails themselves aren’t enough to call the overall science of CO2-driven, human-caused climate change into question.
The Climategate emails, however, make up only five percent of the Climategate files. The other 95 percent, the programs and data and documents, are where the real story is hiding. That story has begun to come out, in several independent analyses of the data we have, using hints from the emails and from other files and raw data that is available from other sources.
A story is beginning to take shape. This story broke into the world media Wednesday. An article in RIA Novosti, the Russian state-owned news service, states:
On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office inExeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.
The article reports that the IEA had taken a new look at the data used in the Intergovernmental Panel for Climatic Change (IPCC) reports. These reports, which became the basis for warnings of dramatic human-caused global warming that led to calls for extensive regulation and to the current climate change conference in Copenhagen, are based on world temperature estimates using measurements from thousands of reporting sites throughout the world.
Novosti reported that the data used for temperature measurements in Russia appeared to have been carefully chosen from the warmest reporting sites. If an average were taken over all Russian reporting sites, then there was little or no warming to report. Read more.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
D’Aleo: … And Just Like That, the Warming’s Gone
As James Delingpole, in the Telegraph, noted Wednesday:
Climategate just got much, much bigger. And all thanks to the Russians who, with perfect timing, dropped this bombshell just as the world’s leaders are gathering in Copenhagen to discuss ways of carbon-taxing us all back to the dark ages.
On Tuesday, we heard via the Ria Novosti agency that the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change had probably tampered with Russian-climate data:
The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.
The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.
The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations. They concluded climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations and data from stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.
Paint-by-Numbers Science
Imagine a paint-by-numbers kit with 12 colors of the spectrum — from purple and blue, green to yellow, orange and red, each numbered. When you finish coloring the areas in the coloring book or canvas with the appropriate color number, you have a color painting for the fridge.
Suppose you got a version with only the number 1 and 2 colors marked. You have the colors — but what you end up with is a patchwork of two colors on a white background, with lines defining other areas. You could guess about the other colors, but the end result may not be what the original creator had in mind.
Believe it or not, this very simple analogy applies to the claims of global warming.
In the climate change map of the world, where the Earth is depicted as flat (and skeptics are called flat-earthers, naturally) and with a latitude/longitude grid as the “to be colored” areas, the purples and blues represent cold temperatures and yellows, oranges, and reds represent warm. It appears the stations chosen in Russia were those that were likely to be warmer — reds and oranges. Further, with no information on what color to use for the areas where stations were ignored, guesses were made to fill in the empty grid boxes by extrapolating only from the warmer subset of stations.
More reds and oranges. Read more.
Climategate just got much, much bigger. And all thanks to the Russians who, with perfect timing, dropped this bombshell just as the world’s leaders are gathering in Copenhagen to discuss ways of carbon-taxing us all back to the dark ages.
On Tuesday, we heard via the Ria Novosti agency that the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change had probably tampered with Russian-climate data:
The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.
The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.
The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations. They concluded climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations and data from stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.
Paint-by-Numbers Science
Imagine a paint-by-numbers kit with 12 colors of the spectrum — from purple and blue, green to yellow, orange and red, each numbered. When you finish coloring the areas in the coloring book or canvas with the appropriate color number, you have a color painting for the fridge.
Suppose you got a version with only the number 1 and 2 colors marked. You have the colors — but what you end up with is a patchwork of two colors on a white background, with lines defining other areas. You could guess about the other colors, but the end result may not be what the original creator had in mind.
Believe it or not, this very simple analogy applies to the claims of global warming.
In the climate change map of the world, where the Earth is depicted as flat (and skeptics are called flat-earthers, naturally) and with a latitude/longitude grid as the “to be colored” areas, the purples and blues represent cold temperatures and yellows, oranges, and reds represent warm. It appears the stations chosen in Russia were those that were likely to be warmer — reds and oranges. Further, with no information on what color to use for the areas where stations were ignored, guesses were made to fill in the empty grid boxes by extrapolating only from the warmer subset of stations.
More reds and oranges. Read more.
The victory of Greenthink on campus
James Howell thought university life would be filled with junk food, non-conformism and critical thinking. He was wrong.
I had thought that in joining an institution like Goldsmiths, University of London, which is known for being a progressive university – this is where the BritArt explosion happened in the 1990s and many famous writers, musicians and academics have studied and taught here – I would be immersing myself in a free-thinking, non-conformist, alternative atmosphere. I was wrong.
The Goldsmiths Students’ Union has signed on to the 10:10 campaign, which means it has pledged to cut the college’s carbon emissions by 10 per cent in 2010. A string of celebs, as well as sports clubs, big companies and schools have signed up to this rather fashionable campaign, which is supported by the UK Guardian. In fact, the campaign is backed by everyone from Number 10 to various local councils and MPs (1).
So perhaps I shouldn’t have been surprised that Goldsmiths, too, had jumped on the bandwagon. Yet universities – or at least student bodies – are supposed to be different. They are supposed to be havens of non-conformism and plurality of thought. Right?
What was truly surprising to me is just how little questioning and challenging of orthodoxies happens on student campuses these days. That was once the staple of student life, but, today, when it comes to the effects of climate change, any student who chooses not to recycle their lecture notes is treated as deranged.
Around the UK, various green student societies have sprung up. At Goldsmiths, for instance, there’s the ‘Enviro-club’, which is ‘passionate about environmental issues’. At an event last year, the club put a sofa on the street and handed out free tea and cake to anyone willing to participate in ‘inspiring conversations about fruit, veg and gardening’ (2). Which is possibly the most inappropriate use of the word ‘inspiring’ ever. Read more.
I had thought that in joining an institution like Goldsmiths, University of London, which is known for being a progressive university – this is where the BritArt explosion happened in the 1990s and many famous writers, musicians and academics have studied and taught here – I would be immersing myself in a free-thinking, non-conformist, alternative atmosphere. I was wrong.
The Goldsmiths Students’ Union has signed on to the 10:10 campaign, which means it has pledged to cut the college’s carbon emissions by 10 per cent in 2010. A string of celebs, as well as sports clubs, big companies and schools have signed up to this rather fashionable campaign, which is supported by the UK Guardian. In fact, the campaign is backed by everyone from Number 10 to various local councils and MPs (1).
So perhaps I shouldn’t have been surprised that Goldsmiths, too, had jumped on the bandwagon. Yet universities – or at least student bodies – are supposed to be different. They are supposed to be havens of non-conformism and plurality of thought. Right?
What was truly surprising to me is just how little questioning and challenging of orthodoxies happens on student campuses these days. That was once the staple of student life, but, today, when it comes to the effects of climate change, any student who chooses not to recycle their lecture notes is treated as deranged.
Around the UK, various green student societies have sprung up. At Goldsmiths, for instance, there’s the ‘Enviro-club’, which is ‘passionate about environmental issues’. At an event last year, the club put a sofa on the street and handed out free tea and cake to anyone willing to participate in ‘inspiring conversations about fruit, veg and gardening’ (2). Which is possibly the most inappropriate use of the word ‘inspiring’ ever. Read more.
Cap-and-fraud fiasco - By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN
Massive scams threaten 'credibility' of carbon trading and could cost us billions
Forget the freak show in Copenhagen to embarrass Canada, led by radical greens with their tiresome "Fossil" awards, shamefully promoted by grandstanding Toronto Mayor David Miller, who "accepted" one claiming he, too, was embarrassed.
Ignore the destructive attacks by Ontario and Quebec on Alberta, proving premiers Dalton McGuinty, Jean Charest and their environmental mouthpieces, are the small men of Confederation.
Ignore the freaks who cut down our flag from Canada's High Commission in London, threatening to smear it with oil, the American "Yes Men" with their juvenile antics and European warmists comparing Canada to Saudi Arabia.
They're all buffoons.
Focus instead on the real scandal as 192 world leaders, including Prime Minister Stephen Harper, gather in Copenhagen for their final, self-laudatory communique on climate change, which will declare victory and propose more UN meetings to save the planet.
The real scandal is that Europol, the European law enforcement agency, has uncovered a massive fraud by large-scale, organized crime in Europe's carbon trading markets.
Rob Wainwright, director of Europol's serious crime squad, told the Telegraph it has "endangered the credibility" of carbon trading.
Police estimate over $7 billion was stolen in just 18 months and say criminals may next target Europe's electricity and gas markets.
Up to 90% of all carbon trading in some European countries -- supposedly to help lower global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions -- may have been fraudulent.
The U.K., France, Spain, Holland and Denmark were hit. Denmark, according to the Guardian, passed emergency legislation related to the fraud just as the UN climate change meeting in its capital of Copenhagen was getting underway.
Fraudsters would set up in one country, buy tax-free carbon credits from other nations and then sell them domestically, adding on the value-added tax. But instead of forwarding those taxes to the government, they would disappear with the cash and set up somewhere else. Read more.
Forget the freak show in Copenhagen to embarrass Canada, led by radical greens with their tiresome "Fossil" awards, shamefully promoted by grandstanding Toronto Mayor David Miller, who "accepted" one claiming he, too, was embarrassed.
Ignore the destructive attacks by Ontario and Quebec on Alberta, proving premiers Dalton McGuinty, Jean Charest and their environmental mouthpieces, are the small men of Confederation.
Ignore the freaks who cut down our flag from Canada's High Commission in London, threatening to smear it with oil, the American "Yes Men" with their juvenile antics and European warmists comparing Canada to Saudi Arabia.
They're all buffoons.
Focus instead on the real scandal as 192 world leaders, including Prime Minister Stephen Harper, gather in Copenhagen for their final, self-laudatory communique on climate change, which will declare victory and propose more UN meetings to save the planet.
The real scandal is that Europol, the European law enforcement agency, has uncovered a massive fraud by large-scale, organized crime in Europe's carbon trading markets.
Rob Wainwright, director of Europol's serious crime squad, told the Telegraph it has "endangered the credibility" of carbon trading.
Police estimate over $7 billion was stolen in just 18 months and say criminals may next target Europe's electricity and gas markets.
Up to 90% of all carbon trading in some European countries -- supposedly to help lower global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions -- may have been fraudulent.
The U.K., France, Spain, Holland and Denmark were hit. Denmark, according to the Guardian, passed emergency legislation related to the fraud just as the UN climate change meeting in its capital of Copenhagen was getting underway.
Fraudsters would set up in one country, buy tax-free carbon credits from other nations and then sell them domestically, adding on the value-added tax. But instead of forwarding those taxes to the government, they would disappear with the cash and set up somewhere else. Read more.
World leaders remain far from a deal in Copenhagen
THE COPENHAGEN climate conference set to wrap up Friday was supposed to produce a landmark accord on climate change. It won't. Hopes for a binding treaty died weeks before the meeting. And with some observers terming the proceedings "Constipagen," it's all too easy to wonder whether the conferees will even be able to conclude a less ambitious political agreement. Negotiators have gone in procedural circles for nearly two weeks, and, on some issues, consensus looks even more distant than before. With heads of state arriving as you read this editorial, what can the conference produce in its final stage?
The big fissures generally lie between rich and poor. Developing nations variously want rich countries to commit to emissions cuts on the order of 25 to 40 percent of 1990 levels by 2020; to provide at least $100 billion a year by 2020 to help poorer countries adapt to climate change, curb deforestation and decrease the carbon intensity of their development; and to preserve the Kyoto Protocol, as of now the only binding treaty on climate change, even though it obliges neither the United States nor China -- nor, for that matter, any developing nation -- to curb greenhouse pollution.
Developed countries appear ready to provide about $10 billion annually for the next few years to help poor nations adapt to climate change, among other things. But they shouldn't commit to much more without some critical concessions, particularly from the big emitters that will account for so much future emissions growth, notably China. Such developing nations should not be expected to deliver the same reduction in emissions as rich nations do, but the promises they do make should be just as binding. They, along with industrialized nations, must be required to report their emissions and be subject to robust international monitoring and verification. That also goes for those countries participating in any international anti-deforestation scheme. Otherwise, the system will be far too easy to game.
These concessions are necessary not only on logical grounds. They are essential for the United States to even come close to meeting one of the developing world's primary demands: That it cut its emissions significantly by 2020. Global-warming legislation doesn't have a chance in the Senate unless President Obama comes home with believable commitments from China, India and others. Read more.
The big fissures generally lie between rich and poor. Developing nations variously want rich countries to commit to emissions cuts on the order of 25 to 40 percent of 1990 levels by 2020; to provide at least $100 billion a year by 2020 to help poorer countries adapt to climate change, curb deforestation and decrease the carbon intensity of their development; and to preserve the Kyoto Protocol, as of now the only binding treaty on climate change, even though it obliges neither the United States nor China -- nor, for that matter, any developing nation -- to curb greenhouse pollution.
Developed countries appear ready to provide about $10 billion annually for the next few years to help poor nations adapt to climate change, among other things. But they shouldn't commit to much more without some critical concessions, particularly from the big emitters that will account for so much future emissions growth, notably China. Such developing nations should not be expected to deliver the same reduction in emissions as rich nations do, but the promises they do make should be just as binding. They, along with industrialized nations, must be required to report their emissions and be subject to robust international monitoring and verification. That also goes for those countries participating in any international anti-deforestation scheme. Otherwise, the system will be far too easy to game.
These concessions are necessary not only on logical grounds. They are essential for the United States to even come close to meeting one of the developing world's primary demands: That it cut its emissions significantly by 2020. Global-warming legislation doesn't have a chance in the Senate unless President Obama comes home with believable commitments from China, India and others. Read more.
What would Ayn Rand Say?
We don't need the government to protect the environment?
[Playboy 23] My position is fully consistent. [Obj 977] In the Middle Ages, man's life expectancy was 30 years. If it were true that industry is destructive to human life, one would find life expectancy declining in the more advanced countries. But it has been rising steadily. Anyone over 30 years of age today, give a silent "Thank you" to the nearest, sootiest smokestacks you can find.
What about the other species?
[Obj 966] Contrary to the ecologists, nature does not stand still and does not maintain the kind of "equilibrium" that guarantees the survival of any particular species - least of all her greatest and most fragile product, man. [Cult Update 12] Man cannot survive in the state of nature ecologists envision. Man has to discover and produce everything he needs, which means that he has to alter his background. Man has to manufacture things. The lowest tribe cannot survive without that alleged source of pollution: fire. It is not merely symbolic that fire was the property of the gods which Prometheus brought to man.
Don't you enjoy the world's biological diversity? Doesn't the natural world fill you with wonder?
[Donahue #2 26:18] No. You know when I'm filled with wonder? When I look up at skyscrapers, at the manmade, at what men were able to achieve on their own, without the help of faith or any sort of mysticism.
But you do acknowledge that pollution can cause problems for people?
[Obj 789] Pollution is primarily a scientific, not a political problem. In regard to the political problem: if a man creates a physical danger or harm to others which extends beyond the line of his own property, the law can hold him responsible. If the condition is collective, such as in an overcrowded city, appropriate and objective laws can be defined, protecting the rights of all involved - as in the case of oil rights, air-space rights, etc.
How about laws based on "True Cost," like pollution-credit systems, which incent industry to compete on finding environmental solutions?
[Obj 790] Such laws must not be aimed at a single scapegoat, i.e. the industrialists. [Obj 981] Industry is not the only culprit. The handling of sewage and garbage disposal problems, so frequently denounced, has been the province of local governments. [ARL 21] Americans will enthusiastically clean their streets, their rivers, their backyards, but when it comes to giving up progress, technology, the automobile, and their standard of living, Americans will prove that the man-haters "ain't seen nothing yet."
You must despise alternative transportation protests like London's annual "Reclaim the Streets" action or the "Critical Mass" bicycle demonstrations.
[Obj News v4 56] It can be rationally proved that the airplane is objectively of immeasurably greater value to man, to man at his best, than the bicycle. But if a given man's transportation needs do not extend beyond the range of a bicycle, [there is no] reason why the rest of mankind should be held down.
So, mass transit and roads themselves should all be private. No more departments of transportation or motor vehicles.
[Column 24] The only way a government can be of service to national prosperity is by keeping its hands off. [Margin 143] By their very natures, bureaucrats are neither intelligent nor competent, but parasites. The competent do not go in for government service.
And of course, any government power opens the door to corruption.
[Obj News v1 40] Cases of actual corruption are not a major motivating factor in today's situation. The motive power is the manipulations of little lawyers and public relations men pulling strings. These lobbyists are profiteers on America's self-immolation.
Read more.
[Playboy 23] My position is fully consistent. [Obj 977] In the Middle Ages, man's life expectancy was 30 years. If it were true that industry is destructive to human life, one would find life expectancy declining in the more advanced countries. But it has been rising steadily. Anyone over 30 years of age today, give a silent "Thank you" to the nearest, sootiest smokestacks you can find.
What about the other species?
[Obj 966] Contrary to the ecologists, nature does not stand still and does not maintain the kind of "equilibrium" that guarantees the survival of any particular species - least of all her greatest and most fragile product, man. [Cult Update 12] Man cannot survive in the state of nature ecologists envision. Man has to discover and produce everything he needs, which means that he has to alter his background. Man has to manufacture things. The lowest tribe cannot survive without that alleged source of pollution: fire. It is not merely symbolic that fire was the property of the gods which Prometheus brought to man.
Don't you enjoy the world's biological diversity? Doesn't the natural world fill you with wonder?
[Donahue #2 26:18] No. You know when I'm filled with wonder? When I look up at skyscrapers, at the manmade, at what men were able to achieve on their own, without the help of faith or any sort of mysticism.
But you do acknowledge that pollution can cause problems for people?
[Obj 789] Pollution is primarily a scientific, not a political problem. In regard to the political problem: if a man creates a physical danger or harm to others which extends beyond the line of his own property, the law can hold him responsible. If the condition is collective, such as in an overcrowded city, appropriate and objective laws can be defined, protecting the rights of all involved - as in the case of oil rights, air-space rights, etc.
How about laws based on "True Cost," like pollution-credit systems, which incent industry to compete on finding environmental solutions?
[Obj 790] Such laws must not be aimed at a single scapegoat, i.e. the industrialists. [Obj 981] Industry is not the only culprit. The handling of sewage and garbage disposal problems, so frequently denounced, has been the province of local governments. [ARL 21] Americans will enthusiastically clean their streets, their rivers, their backyards, but when it comes to giving up progress, technology, the automobile, and their standard of living, Americans will prove that the man-haters "ain't seen nothing yet."
You must despise alternative transportation protests like London's annual "Reclaim the Streets" action or the "Critical Mass" bicycle demonstrations.
[Obj News v4 56] It can be rationally proved that the airplane is objectively of immeasurably greater value to man, to man at his best, than the bicycle. But if a given man's transportation needs do not extend beyond the range of a bicycle, [there is no] reason why the rest of mankind should be held down.
So, mass transit and roads themselves should all be private. No more departments of transportation or motor vehicles.
[Column 24] The only way a government can be of service to national prosperity is by keeping its hands off. [Margin 143] By their very natures, bureaucrats are neither intelligent nor competent, but parasites. The competent do not go in for government service.
And of course, any government power opens the door to corruption.
[Obj News v1 40] Cases of actual corruption are not a major motivating factor in today's situation. The motive power is the manipulations of little lawyers and public relations men pulling strings. These lobbyists are profiteers on America's self-immolation.
Read more.
Green is the New Red: Crackpots in Copenhagen
Why is the Left so invested in selling the climate change catastrophe? Joe Hicks examines the Marxist tones permeating the Copenhagen climate talks in the latest Hicks File. ("Hicks File") Watch and comment here.
Lord Christopher Monckton questions IPPC chairman
Monckton asks difficult questions of Dr. Pachauri after a speech at the University of Copenhagen
CFACT delegate and former Margaret Thatcher advisor Lord Christopher Monckton attended a speech by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) chairman Dr. Rajendra Pachauri to ask the chairman several difficult questions. ClimateDepot.com executive editor Marc Morano also asked difficult questions.
When Lord Monckton's questions about a conflict of interest between Dr. Pachauri's financial interest and position on the IPCC were not adequately answered he stood up and demanded an adequate response
Dr. Pachauri appeared totally unprepared to appropriately answer the questions and ran out of the building immediately after the Q&A session closed without talking to anybody.
Climategate: European Carbon Credit Trading System Plagued by Fraud
A main aim of the Copenhagen climate conference is to expand the EU’s fraud- and corruption-plagued carbon trading scheme into a global system for trading carbon.
The European Union’s flagship cap-and-trade carbon credit trading system is plagued by massive fraud and is effectively under the control of organized crime, according to a December 9 statement issued by European police. Europol, an EU-wide criminal intelligence agency similar to the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, says bogus trading at the EU’s Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) has exceeded €5 billion (U.S.$7 billion) over the past 18 months alone. Europol says that in some EU countries, up to 90 percent of the entire market volume is fraudulent.
News of the scale of the fraud, which comes just weeks after hundreds of hacked emails suggest that scientists have manipulated and exaggerated global warming data, will cast further doubt over the effectiveness of carbon trading as a way to curb emissions. It may also provide fresh ammunition to critics of the Obama administration’s plans to implement a cap-and-trade system in the United States that is largely based on the European model. Read more.
The European Union’s flagship cap-and-trade carbon credit trading system is plagued by massive fraud and is effectively under the control of organized crime, according to a December 9 statement issued by European police. Europol, an EU-wide criminal intelligence agency similar to the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, says bogus trading at the EU’s Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) has exceeded €5 billion (U.S.$7 billion) over the past 18 months alone. Europol says that in some EU countries, up to 90 percent of the entire market volume is fraudulent.
News of the scale of the fraud, which comes just weeks after hundreds of hacked emails suggest that scientists have manipulated and exaggerated global warming data, will cast further doubt over the effectiveness of carbon trading as a way to curb emissions. It may also provide fresh ammunition to critics of the Obama administration’s plans to implement a cap-and-trade system in the United States that is largely based on the European model. Read more.
The Copenhagen PR scam
As for those who are stressed by the possibility that negotiators will reach a last-minute agreement containing bona fide emission caps that will beggar industrialized nations for the benefit of developing ones, we also say stop worrying. While delegates might sign away the moon amid the giddy glitter of Copenhagen, the realities of domestic politics they face when they return home — recession, unemployment, budget deficits — mean their pledges will quickly fade to nothingness.
Prospects of a deal have looked bleak all week. First, developing nations scoffed at a European Union offer of a $11-billion fund to help them tackle climate change over the next three years. Lumumba Stanislaus Dia-Ping of Sudan, who has become a sort of de facto leader of developing and underdeveloped nations at the conference, said the EU offer was the equivalent of “providing no finance whatsoever.”
...The irony is that, amid all this chaos, the environmental ends of the Earth summit have been largely abandoned. Instead, both sides seem focused on negotiating what amounts essentially to a straight-out inter-regional transfer of wealth. Read more.
Prospects of a deal have looked bleak all week. First, developing nations scoffed at a European Union offer of a $11-billion fund to help them tackle climate change over the next three years. Lumumba Stanislaus Dia-Ping of Sudan, who has become a sort of de facto leader of developing and underdeveloped nations at the conference, said the EU offer was the equivalent of “providing no finance whatsoever.”
...The irony is that, amid all this chaos, the environmental ends of the Earth summit have been largely abandoned. Instead, both sides seem focused on negotiating what amounts essentially to a straight-out inter-regional transfer of wealth. Read more.
Hundreds arrested as climate talks sour
Witness the face of our enemies.
With world leaders arriving for final talks, police clash with protesters
Connie Hedegaard, the former Danish climate minister, resigned the conference presidency to allow Rasmussen to take the reins of the meeting as world leaders began arriving. Hedegaard was to continue overseeing closed-door negotiations.
Meanwhile, officials from a select group of 48 countries were still waiting Wednesday for a draft text for them to negotiate – leaving little time for officials to reach agreement for world leaders, including Prime Minister Stephen Harper, to sign when they arrive. Read more.
With world leaders arriving for final talks, police clash with protesters
An activist reacts as police pushes back a group during a protest
in Copenhagen on December 16, 2009.
COPENHAGEN – Gloom has started turning to doom here at a climate change summit where failure is becoming the expectation and breakthrough would be the surprise outcome.
At a grand opening ceremony, UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, Britain's Prince Charles and Danish Prime Minister Lars Rokke Rasmussen warned countries that compromise must pave their path if a climate agreement is to be signed by Friday.
Outside the conference centre, Danish police fired pepper spray and beat protesters with batons as hundreds of protesters tried to disrupt the conference. Police said 230 protesters were detained.Connie Hedegaard, the former Danish climate minister, resigned the conference presidency to allow Rasmussen to take the reins of the meeting as world leaders began arriving. Hedegaard was to continue overseeing closed-door negotiations.
Meanwhile, officials from a select group of 48 countries were still waiting Wednesday for a draft text for them to negotiate – leaving little time for officials to reach agreement for world leaders, including Prime Minister Stephen Harper, to sign when they arrive. Read more.
Cope Notes #2: So Many Despots, So Little Time!
I felt like I was in a time-warp yesterday, running alongside the demonstrators, shooting video, as the protestors shouted “The whole world is watching!” (yes, that oldie!), challenging the police who were blocking their way. But this time it wasn’t the DC but the Copenhagen cops and the building to be stormed was not the Pentagon, but the Bella Center – a gussied-up seventies edifice where the UN Climate Conference (Cop 15) is taking place. “The whole word is watching!” soon gave in to “Ho, ho, ho, ho – Bella Center here we go!” that reminded me rather much of “Ho, Ho, Ho Chih Minh – Viet Cong is gonna win!” There was a bit too of “The People United will never be defeated” (El pueblo unido jamas sera vencido) from the Hispanic contingent.
The demonstrators never made the Center. The cops blocked them, shortly after I saw a couple of protestors climbing power poles. Someone ran past me, his face contorted from pepper spray. I heard screaming and now everyone was running backwards. Me too.
But nothing much happened. The Danish cops were pretty tame and the protestors, retreads that they were, weren’t especially good at playing the old game of bait-the-police. I kept thinking of Marx’s famous rewrite of Hegel – the one about history being replayed the first time as tragedy and the second time as farce. I don’t know about tragedy, but there certainly was plenty of farce to go around – demonstrators dressed as clowns, middle-aged Brazilian ladies in tiger suits and Amazonian false breasts promising to save the rain forests, an old guy from Estonia pushing a model elephant he had constructed entirely of recycled trash. These were Norman Mailer’s Armies of the Night gone globalist and, boy, did they appear useless. What will they all do when it’s over and they have to go home?
Inside the Bella Center things were scarcely better. Cop 15 is a bifurcated event. Outside are the noisy demonstrators who think – or say they think – capitalism is the root of all evil. Inside are mixed bags of socialist and capitalist poo-bahs negotiating the extension of an agreement – the Kyoto Protocol – that no one ever adhered to in the first place. It’s the UN at its purest. Grown-up (jacket and tie) versions of the outside demonstrators and self-serving bureaucrats manipulating large amounts of cash, under the rubric of “climate debt” – the money supposedly owed by energy-belching developed nations to the less fortunate. (Many of the “less fortunate” seem to be staying in my hotel replete with large entourages, security, luxury limousines, etc.)
The number on the table they are jousting over at the moment is a 100 billion dollar international fund through 2020, no small sum for an unproven theory (AGW). The US now appears to be behind it, although there is an element of charade in all this. (The Chinese won’t accede to the transparency demands and everyone else knows it.) Meanwhile, several of the delegates I’ve talked to worry that all this talk of global warming Armageddon is distracting the world from genuine existing and varifiable problems, such as potable water, malaria, etc. Read more.
The demonstrators never made the Center. The cops blocked them, shortly after I saw a couple of protestors climbing power poles. Someone ran past me, his face contorted from pepper spray. I heard screaming and now everyone was running backwards. Me too.
But nothing much happened. The Danish cops were pretty tame and the protestors, retreads that they were, weren’t especially good at playing the old game of bait-the-police. I kept thinking of Marx’s famous rewrite of Hegel – the one about history being replayed the first time as tragedy and the second time as farce. I don’t know about tragedy, but there certainly was plenty of farce to go around – demonstrators dressed as clowns, middle-aged Brazilian ladies in tiger suits and Amazonian false breasts promising to save the rain forests, an old guy from Estonia pushing a model elephant he had constructed entirely of recycled trash. These were Norman Mailer’s Armies of the Night gone globalist and, boy, did they appear useless. What will they all do when it’s over and they have to go home?
Inside the Bella Center things were scarcely better. Cop 15 is a bifurcated event. Outside are the noisy demonstrators who think – or say they think – capitalism is the root of all evil. Inside are mixed bags of socialist and capitalist poo-bahs negotiating the extension of an agreement – the Kyoto Protocol – that no one ever adhered to in the first place. It’s the UN at its purest. Grown-up (jacket and tie) versions of the outside demonstrators and self-serving bureaucrats manipulating large amounts of cash, under the rubric of “climate debt” – the money supposedly owed by energy-belching developed nations to the less fortunate. (Many of the “less fortunate” seem to be staying in my hotel replete with large entourages, security, luxury limousines, etc.)
The number on the table they are jousting over at the moment is a 100 billion dollar international fund through 2020, no small sum for an unproven theory (AGW). The US now appears to be behind it, although there is an element of charade in all this. (The Chinese won’t accede to the transparency demands and everyone else knows it.) Meanwhile, several of the delegates I’ve talked to worry that all this talk of global warming Armageddon is distracting the world from genuine existing and varifiable problems, such as potable water, malaria, etc. Read more.
Climate Cultists Assault Global Warming Skeptic During Live Interview
Aghast that someone dared challenge the sanctity of Al Gore’s holy climate empire, global warming loons pelted journalist Phelim McAleer with objects during a live television interview, proving once again the extreme left’s constant preaching of tolerance doesn’t extend to tolerating the free speech of anyone who disagrees with them.
McAleer has been hounded, assaulted and silenced at every turn during the Copenhagen summit by free-speech hating thugs and their ever enthusiastic supporters – the climate cultists who recoil in horror every time their belief system is questioned.
During a press conference on Monday, McAleer committed the dastardly offense of asking Professor Stephen Schneider a question about the Climategate scandal, an action that was met with an armed response from a UN thug who bandied around threats before kicking McAleer and his cameraman out of the event.
Later in the week, McAleer had the temerity to ask Al Gore a similar question. UN gestapo reacted by yanking his microphone from his hand and disconnecting the wire. Read more.
Lord Monckton reports on Pachauri’s eye opening Copenhagen presentation
The official party shambled in and perched on the blue plastic chairs next to me. Pachauri was just a couple of seats away, so I gave him a letter from me and Senator Fielding of Australia, pointing out that the headline graph in the IPCC’s 2007 report, purporting to show that the rate of warming over the past 150 years had itself accelerated, was fraudulent.
Would he use the bogus graph in his lecture? I had seen him do so when he received an honorary doctorate from the University of New South Wales. I watched and waited.
Sure enough, he used the bogus graph. I decided to wait until he had finished, and ask a question then.
Pachauri then produced the now wearisome list of lies, fibs, fabrications and exaggerations that comprise the entire case for alarm about “global warming”. He delivered it in a tired, unenthusiastic voice, knowing that a growing majority of the world’s peoples – particularly in those countries where comment is free – no longer believe a word the IPCC says.
They are right not to believe. Science is not a belief system. But here is what Pachauri invited the audience in Copenhagen to believe: Read more.
PRINCE CHARLES: EXECUTIVE JET WITH BIG CARBON FOOTPRINT GETS HIM TO CLIMATE CHANGE TALKS
Prince Gore?
PRINCE Charles used up seven months’ worth of the average British person’s “carbon footprint” yesterday flying to Copenhagen on an executive jet to make a speech on climate change.
The heir to the throne, who prides himself on his green credentials, cost taxpayers an estimated £12,000 and racked up a 6.486-ton carbon footprint in one day by taking a seven-seater RAF Royal Flight HS125 jet to the summit in the Danish capital.
Charles, who made an impassioned speech to world leaders on the need to agree drastic cuts in carbon emissions, decided against taking a more environmentally-friendly train or scheduled airliner, arguing it was impractical.
“We looked at the possibility of flying scheduled but due to the usual considerations of security, punctuality – we could not afford a delayed or cancelled flight – and practicality, using the Royal Flight was seen as the best option,” his spokesman said.
Similar trips in the last couple of years have cost £12,000. Read more.
Prince Charles travelled to Copenhagen on an executive jet to make a speech on climate change
PRINCE Charles used up seven months’ worth of the average British person’s “carbon footprint” yesterday flying to Copenhagen on an executive jet to make a speech on climate change.
The heir to the throne, who prides himself on his green credentials, cost taxpayers an estimated £12,000 and racked up a 6.486-ton carbon footprint in one day by taking a seven-seater RAF Royal Flight HS125 jet to the summit in the Danish capital.
Charles, who made an impassioned speech to world leaders on the need to agree drastic cuts in carbon emissions, decided against taking a more environmentally-friendly train or scheduled airliner, arguing it was impractical.
“We looked at the possibility of flying scheduled but due to the usual considerations of security, punctuality – we could not afford a delayed or cancelled flight – and practicality, using the Royal Flight was seen as the best option,” his spokesman said.
Similar trips in the last couple of years have cost £12,000. Read more.
Copenhagen climate conference: ministers plan new summit
This pressure group is relentless and determined to move ahead in the face of scandal and lies.
World leaders could put off major decisions on global warming for another six months time amid a warning from Gordon Brown that at the Copenhagen climate conference is threatened with “deadlock”.
Mr Miliband said bureaucratic wrangling was threatening to exhaust the time available to secure a deal at the Danish meeting.
"We have to find ways of unblocking this procedural wrangling because if we exhaust ourselves and run the clock down we will not get an agreement," he said, adding that he was frustrated at "talking about talks rather than talking."
Achim Steiner, the head of the UN Environment Programme, said that without a real deal, it could be better to defer big decisions until the next summit.
Mr Steiner said: “A meaningless deal in Copenhagen cannot be in anyone’s interests because it locks us into another decade of inadequate action and co-operation so if time runs out there is always the option of stopping the clock and reconvening to get it right. “But the risk is that that the momentum that is so characteristic of these 10 days in Copenhagen might be lost and then the world will struggle to take this further in the next six to 12 months.” Read more.
World leaders could put off major decisions on global warming for another six months time amid a warning from Gordon Brown that at the Copenhagen climate conference is threatened with “deadlock”.
The prospect of bringing forward the Mexico meeting was first made by Al Gore, and may present an alternative to deadlock. Photo: REUTERS
The Prime Minister spoke as Governments meeting in Denmark failed to resolve their disputes over how much to cut their emissions, how to prove that those cuts are actually made, and who should pay for the move to a low-carbon economy.
As British officials admitted that the talks remain “ very difficult”, Ed Miliband, the climate change secretary, signalled Britain is prepared to back a move to hold another international climate summit in Mexico City next summer, several months ahead of schedule.
The prospect of bringing forward the Mexico meeting was first made by Al Gore, the former US vice president and environmentalist. Mr Miliband said bureaucratic wrangling was threatening to exhaust the time available to secure a deal at the Danish meeting.
"We have to find ways of unblocking this procedural wrangling because if we exhaust ourselves and run the clock down we will not get an agreement," he said, adding that he was frustrated at "talking about talks rather than talking."
Achim Steiner, the head of the UN Environment Programme, said that without a real deal, it could be better to defer big decisions until the next summit.
Mr Steiner said: “A meaningless deal in Copenhagen cannot be in anyone’s interests because it locks us into another decade of inadequate action and co-operation so if time runs out there is always the option of stopping the clock and reconvening to get it right. “But the risk is that that the momentum that is so characteristic of these 10 days in Copenhagen might be lost and then the world will struggle to take this further in the next six to 12 months.” Read more.
At Copenhagen, both rich and developing nations offer concessions
Rriot police push back protesters during a rally outside the venue of the climate talks in Copenhagen. (Thibault Camus/associated Press)
COPENHAGEN -- As President Obama prepared to visit the historic climate conference here, there were signs Wednesday of a break in the impasse between rich and developing nations.
The United States and Japan agreed to make major contributions to the developing world to keep prospects of a deal alive. And the leader of a bloc of African nations said they would accept a smaller -- though still sizable -- package of financial aid, in return for going along with an agreement.
But tear gas hung in the air outside the conference center, as protesters demanding faster and more stringent cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions clashed with police. And, inside, talks were slowed by disagreements within the developing world -- which has proved a more powerful, and more fractious, force than expected.
Some environmentalists expressed hope that Obama's appearance Friday, the final day of the 12-day talks, could help end the two chaotic weeks on a successful note.
"If the pieces are here, President Obama is the only person who can pull them together into an agreement," said Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund. "We expect him to do so." Read more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)