China, India, Brazil, South Africa plan joint walkout if pressured at Copenhagen

Well good on them. Nor should they accept anything without bucketloads of cash.
Of course the big question is why the hell are the developed nations messing about with this in the first place?
It may not have been great political thinking but the change of Opposition leadership here in Australia – driven by a revolt against an Emissions Trading Scheme – has squashed (almost) any chance of an ETS being passed before Copenhagen.
If Australia, with a green-hued Labor government, can’t pass it, and the US, with uncle O in change can’t pass it, why should the poor countries pay any price at all?

If this doesn’t show the whole Copenhagen charade is about economics then what does? The whole thing is a farcical summit to throw our money and the developing world, so they can spend it on climate ‘solutions’ made by our businesses.
Meanwhile in the UK, the CRU’s media offensive continues as Richard Black of the BBC comes to the aid of his best mate Phil the Shred.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8387137.stm

Isn’t this basically imperialism? The western powers are creating a false fear and telling the developing world they will have to slow down… by what right can they do that?

So let me get this straight. Over 50% of the world’s population and the greatest polluters and carbon emitters must not be held responsible for their actions and 100% of the responsibility must be placed on the other less than 50% of the world’s population?
I have a suggestion. How about a global tax on carbon emissions that taxes tons of CO2 per unit of economic output? That way cleaner economies pay less, dirtier economies pay more. That gives incentives for everyone to clean up their act. Each year the “cleanest” economy is chosen (no handicapping!). Each nation pays a tax at a rate on a sliding scale according to their delta from the cleanest. The cleanest nation has a multiplier of 0.10 and the dirtiest a multiplier of 1.00 (pays the full tax rate per ton of CO2).
The tax is collected, turned into Zimbabwe dollars and burned in a power plant that produces the power for UN headquarters. /sarc

If on top of ClimateGate the BASIC countries DO end up walking out in Copenhagen, those 2 things together will indeed likely amount to a game-changing tipping point. Here’s to tipping. . . .

I have a suggestion. How about a global tax on carbon emissions that taxes tons of CO2 per unit of economic output? That way cleaner economies pay less, dirtier economies pay more. That gives incentives for everyone to clean up their act. Each year the “cleanest” economy is chosen (no handicapping!). Each nation pays a tax at a rate on a sliding scale according to their delta from the cleanest. The cleanest nation has a multiplier of 0.10 and the dirtiest a multiplier of 1.00 (pays the full tax rate per ton of CO2).

Many people in Mongolia alive in tents and burn coal to keep warm on winter nights that get down to -40. Mongolia is a poor country but has large coal reserves, and no other practical domestic energy sources. This proposal would kill many people.

Wow, China would win twice on that one. Free tech AND more US debt to own.

Without some background reading I’m unsure of how the “PFI debts” (public finance initiative) correlates with the debt of other countries. The USA has huge commitments for future payments via social security and health plus a few more. The US Govt. uses accounting practices that put corporate executives behind bars and their companies out of business. The truth is the US is deeply in debt but keeps writing IOUs and printing new money as needed. The “cash for clunkers” deal being just one example. Yes, the US and other countries can fashion more money out of thin air but that makes everyone poorer. And the money isn’t really printed so there is nothing to burn as ‘crosspatch’ suggested above.

Gee guys have you got to go.Watch the door does not hit you on the way out.

I invite everyone to listen to this podcast
http://asx.ljcentral.net/mp3/eir/tls/2009/tls091128_en_hi.mp3
It explain who created the Hadley Center CRU. The Malthusian background of those people explain their motive to push policies and science (bad) for depopulation.
They tried global cooling in the 70’s and now they push warming. The reason behind all this is explained beautifully.

As an Aussie who has been sending anti-AGW emails to our senators and my local Federal member of Parliament, I’m feeling quite empowered with the Liberal party leadership change.
Unfortunately, emails to Labor politicians result in buck-passing to ‘the Minister responsible for the portfolio’ and then nothing further.
I dread what our illustrious Prime Minister KRudd is going to commit us to in Copenhagen.

To put it in simple terms, the U.S. has already cleaned up (over the past 50 years) its own pollution. Now it’s to pay to clean up on its own CO2, as well as the real pollution in India, China, et al as well as their CO2.
The Senate will never ratify such a treaty. Assuming such silliness is signed in Copenhagen, don’t expect the Senate to roll over and agree to it. It’s DOA (dead on arrival). Especially during an election year with a third of the Senate seats up for reelection.

Surely we need to clarify this term “developing”?
Australia doesn’t have a nuclear arsenal, nor does it have nuclear power stations or a massive industrialised base. We largely subsist off agricultural production and mineral exhumation and certainly do not have a lunar space program in progress. But neither did we massacre 50 million of our own people on ideological grounds.
So when they mean “developing”, I take it they mean “developing” towards civilised governance and basic medical for all citizens.
And Australia is still struggling to provide basic medical and education to all it’s citizens. Surely this is more important than funding some poorly demonstrated hypothesis on global heat rise due to CO2?
Come the revolution !

My fear is that Obama will be a retard and hand over blank checks to get these countries (especially China, which is playing the weakling but can CRUSH us economically at any time) to get a “successful” outcome at Copenhagen.

I believe the term that we’re looking for is “rent-seeking”.
With a global emissions trade, the less-wealthy nations would be in for a surprise. Carbon traders have sniffed the tailpipes and smoke stacks; and it’s the scent of new gold. The trickle of wealth that hasn’t shifted from the haves to the have-yachts, will be soaked up by the “necessary” expansion of the UN bureaucracy; imposing a greater dependence of the poor on handouts.
National leaders can’t possibly be so naif as to think that their country would ever benefit tangibly. The simplest conclusion is that they’re selling out to get a lifetime ride on the gravy train.

John Peter:
““Sea levels are likely to rise by about 1.4m (4ft 6in) globally by 2100 as polar ice melts, according to a major review of climate change in Antarctica.”
I first heard this on a news bulletin this morning – on a childrens tv channel. My 7 yr old son asked if it was going to happen. I said no. He then replied that scientists are not wrong. I replied that there are other scientists who disagree. He seemed content with that answer.
I’ve seen more robust scientific arguments cooked up by pub drinkers on a late Friday night:
Hey, Fred, you know, that ozone layer of the Antarctic starting to heal up.
Yeah, I know. I guess that could cause some warming.
You’re right. I bet the IPCC didn’t figure that one.
How much do you reckon then, warming wise?
Oh God! Several degrees at least.
Only several? You’ve gotta figure in the positive feedback loop you know.
Yeah that’s right. I’d go with 10 degrees at least.
And then there’s sea level rise. . .
Oh my God! Metres and metres of it. Got a pen?
Why?
I’m writing a paper to send to the BBC.

As someone who lived and worked several years in two of those countries (Brazil and South Africa), I would say that such a position on their part is inevitable. First, even those of their poltical and intellectual elites who do buy the AGW “conventional wisdom” are mostly immune from guilt complexes and “we must save the planet” impulses. The idea that, in that case, it’s the most developed nations that must take most of the responsibility, is deeply ingrained – in fact, I would even say that, politically, it’s a position their leaders can’t afford *not* to take – they would risk being called “puppets of imperialism” or such by their political opponents. Second, while it is clear that no country could really afford to meet those targets without destroying its own economy, wealthier nations (or at least their present leaderships) suffer from a “we can do everything” self-delusion – as in, “yes, we can cut our CO2 emissions by 80% in 40 years and still generate green jobs” etc etc. Countries like Brazil and South Africa are much more aware of the fragility of their own economies and that there is no way they could afford going down that path. As for the bulk of their electorate, well, they are more concerned with things like proper water and electricity supply, jobs, etc, etc than with “preventing the planet from getting more than 2C hotter in one hundred years”. So a Kevin Rudd-like stance of making a big issue of going to Copenhagen will simply not work there.

The whole of the fraud of global warming is becoming a huge wealth transfer charade, quilting the western developed countries with the AGW hoax into paying off the undeveloped countries — Who would in fact be far better off with a few DDT production plants and electrification of their countries.

NGO Sandbag has developed a target calculator which should help people struggling with the “1990 baseline” to understand what kind of cuts their politicians are actually committing to. For example, if the EU were to cut their emissions by 30% based on 1990 that would equate to just 23.7% compared to 2005. In comparison, because of its recent rapid growth an identical promise from Brazil would require cuts of 84.5% on 2005 levels.

in fact there is already one head of state in africa acting as the agw clan or the ipcc – un – organisation is proposing : Mugabe of Zimbabwe . Did he receive a penny in return ? Ask him : Are not we all responsible for all of this ? Is not it the dream of any dictator to make others pay for their own stupidity and mistakes ?
From this point of view is it so unreasonable to ask for a commitment from another when you yourself are not willing to give a commitment ? To make others pay for their own stupidity ?
My question : Mr. Obama do you consider yourself to be smart ?

I expect China, India and the rest will come aboard as soon as somebody else offers to pay for it. I fully expect that offer to be made, too.

What an interesting logo they chose for Copenhagen: A quiet, spotless sun.
Looks a lot like the sun at this very moment:
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/realtime-update.html

Opps, I believe those numbers were in thousands of metric tons.

Crosspatch,
“Opps, I believe those numbers were in thousands of metric tons.”
Well, your point is clear nonetheless, and it ties in quite well with a brief outline of this history of economic growth. If we take the Mongolia economy as equivalent to the American economy in the nineteenth century, the key point is that contrary to the rantings of Malthusians, a economic growth does NOT lead to a linear increase in weight of goods consumed. What actually happens is that the ratio of weight/gdp gets progressively smaller.
This is because the value added to the raw materials of an iPod, is vastly greater than the value added to the raw materials of a table. This is a good thing. Logically therefore, Americans should be praised, not punished for their behaviour.

“Don’t let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya!”

The irony is that it is China, India and Brazil that are going to be far worse off if we get a 4C temperature rise by 2150. Then it will be war, and they will lose badly.