U.N. abandons Copenhagen deadline – countries not signing on – spokesman says the deadline has gone “soft”

The COP15 balloon appears to have lost all it’s air. Nobody’s signing up.

Excerpts from reports in the Guardian and the Financial Times

From the Guardian

Copenhagen deal falters as just 20 countries of 192 sign up to declare their global warming strategies

The UN has dropped the 31 January deadline by which time all countries were expected to officially state their emission reduction targets or list the actions they planned to take to counter climate change.

Yvo de Boer, UN climate change chief, today changed the original date set at last month’s fractious Copenhagen climate summit, saying that it was now a “soft” deadline, which countries could sign up to when they chose. “I do not expect everyone to meet the deadline. Countries are not being asked if they want to adhere… but to indicate if they want to be associated [with the Copenhagen accord].

The timetable to reach a global deal to tackle climate change lay in tatters on Wednesday after the UN waived the first deadline of the process laid out at last month’s fractious Copenhagen summit.

From the Financial Times:

UN abandons climate change deadline
Nations agreed then to declare their emissions reduction targets by the end of this month. Developed countries would state their intended cuts by 2020: developing countries would outline how they would curb emissions growth.

Countries pushing for a new legally binding treaty on climate change will be disappointed, as The waiving of the deadline sets a bad precedent for efforts to finalise a deal this year. The next scheduled meeting is not until late May, in Germany, with another in late November, in Mexico but many officials say more will be needed.

The result of Tuesday’s Massachusetts senatorial election, which took away Barack Obama’s super-majority in the Senate, is likely to push climate change further down the US agenda. It was the latest in a series of setbacks that have caused efforts to push a cap-and-trade bill through the Senate to grind to a halt, making it harder for the White House to participate meaningfully in global climate negotiations.

Instead, the administration has been pressing ahead with steps to limit the US’s carbon emissions through regulation. The Environmental Protection Agency has unveiled new draft rules that would sharply tighten regulations on smog-building pollutants, or ground-level ozone, and has cracked down on greenhouse gas emissions by ruling that carbon dioxide and five other gases pose a danger to health.

h/t’s to WUWT readers Thomas Chisolm and Bruce Foutch

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate News, Copenhagen Climate Conference. Bookmark the permalink.

116 Responses to U.N. abandons Copenhagen deadline – countries not signing on – spokesman says the deadline has gone “soft”

  1. tokyoboy says:

    No wonder.
    COP 16 will also go amiss, I bet.

  2. Dave F says:

    In like a lion, out like a lamb.

    I really think that the IPCC and the world has become so reflexive in the dismissal of opposing views that they really thought that the treaty they got was a victory. Trumped by observations again.

    I will point it out, but not gloat.

  3. Douglas Field says:

    U.N . abandons deadline

    ‘Instead, the administration has been pressing ahead with steps to limit the US’s carbon emissions through regulation. The Environmental Protection Agency has unveiled new draft rules that would sharply tighten regulations on smog-building pollutants, or ground-level ozone, and has cracked down on greenhouse gas emissions by ruling that carbon dioxide and five other gases pose a danger to health.’

    Just when the UN finds a good ‘excuse’ to back away from this obviously poisoned challis, the US administration makes an ass of itself by declaring CO2 a danger to health.

    What planet are these people from? It’s Gilbertian.

  4. JDN says:

    “Countries are not being asked if they want to adhere… but to indicate if they want to be associated [with the Copenhagen accord]”

    … or just sign up to get on the mailing list

  5. Christian Bultmann says:

    Another tipping point came and went and nothing happened.
    Fortunately the UN’s politics are as good as there science.

  6. Thanks for the story.

    This report confirms that even politicians can learn.

    Perhaps the true AGW believers will eventually learn too.

    Keep the spotlight on the Climategate iceberg. Much more will be revealed!

    With deep gratitude,
    Oliver K. Manuel

  7. tokyoboy says:

    I guess this results, at least partially, from the Climatagete scandal, the Pachauri fiasco, and the IPCC botch.

  8. rbateman says:

    “The Environmental Protection Agency has unveiled new draft rules that would sharply tighten regulations on smog-building pollutants, or ground-level ozone, and has cracked down on greenhouse gas emissions by ruling that carbon dioxide and five other gases pose a danger to health.”

    The signup is deflated, the threat was imaginary, and the EPA has cracked up.
    Nobody can afford the IPCC’s price tag for the Emperor’s new clothes, signed up or not.
    The wheels came off.

  9. Leon Brozyna says:

    Those that can, do…

    Those that can’t, become bureaucrats and tell people what to do, when to do it, how to do it, and if it is permitted to do it…

    And in the surreal world the UN inhabits, its little hamster critters will keep on furiously racing in their little wheel, going nowhere and with nothing to show for all their frantic motions, except for promises to have another meeting.

    After the Mexico meeting, hold the next meeting in Moscow … in January 2011.

  10. David says:

    WHAT??? THATS ridiculous.. I mean Obama spoke and everything.. I mean.. cmon. You must have your numbers wrong or something. Thats absurd. Massachusetts would sooner support a republ… ummm…ohh wait…

    — nevermind

  11. Doug says:

    I’m willing to bet this push by the EPA to classify CO2 as a “pollutant” will further damage the Democrats in the eyes of independent voters. How the administration back tracks and extricates itself from this wrong turn will be fascinating to watch.

  12. buy r4i says:

    The Copenhagen Accord contained little substance but it did have an agreement that all nations would state the steps they would take to curb carbon emissions to help save the world from the purported threat of anthropogenic global warming.

  13. TFN Johnson says:

    rE YOUR FIRST PARAGRAPH.

    Please consult any grammar textbook. “It’s” means “It is” and DOES NOT INDICATE POSSESSION BY “IT”.

  14. Nobody wants to invest in a Ponsi scheme, once the formal charges are being drawn up, and prime movers are being sacked or investigated. DUH!

    The undeveloped countries walked out, back at the COP15 meeting when they found out they would not be receiving shares of the loot.

    With the amount of corruption, and lost profits from the crimes incurred in the EU Carbon trading scheme, why would anyone want to sign on now?

  15. Daniel H says:

    A major cultural hurdle that alarmists have yet to grasp (or even acknowledge) is that when Americans hear things like “Dr. Pachauri”, “Evil DeBoar”, and “COP-15″, they tend to conjure up images of Dr. Evil, mini-me, and RoboCop engaged in a vicious doomsday plot to destroy the Earth. Until the clueless bureaucrats in the UNFCCC learn how to identify and address this serious PR deficiency, their much vaunted “agreements” will continue to be DOA.

  16. mkurbo says:

    Cap & Tax (Trade) is DOA. The EPA has now received three (3) lawsuits over the Co2 “endangerment” finding and there will undoubtedly be more hurdles on that front.

    More important, the Scott Brown victory in Massachusetts is just the tip of a much larger iceberg. The tide is turning towards fiscal responsibility by government (because there is no more money) not just in the US, but in many other countries around the world.

    Bottom line – the current worldwide economic downturn has and will claim many causalities. One of those causalities will be reflected in history as the AGW movement. When the money is tight (or non-existent), priorities changes and people are less sympathetic to higher energy prices, higher taxes and more regulations for the sake of some UN driven vision of eco justice (or wealth redistribution).

    Hey AGW proponents – It’s not going to happen, there is no money to underwrite your boondoggle any further. Pack it in and go find a green job…

  17. gtrip says:

    Imagine that. Let’s schedule a new and improved Climate Summit…..yeah, that’s the ticket.

  18. Robert E. Phelan says:

    Interesting to note that the report states that India, Russia, Norway, France and Mexico have signed on…. and not very surprisingly, Australia, as well…. looks like Lord Monckton has his work cut out for him on his Down Under Tour.

  19. jorgekafkazar says:

    Hide the deadline.

  20. Matthew Zobel says:

    “Robert E. Phelan (22:59:32) :

    Interesting to note that the report states that India, Russia, Norway, France and Mexico have signed on…. and not very surprisingly, Australia, as well…. looks like Lord Monckton has his work cut out for him on his Down Under Tour.”

    The political situation is still somewhat iffy for cap’n’trade here is Australia. It’s also an election year so who knows what will happen.

  21. Jeef says:

    I’m in NZ. My stupid Prime Minister turned up to COP15 with an ETS law signed. One of very few. We’re also one of very few to sign the “Copenhagen Accord”.

    Sadly, despite my more than rudimentary search skills, five minutes has given me me no list of the signatories to the Copenhagen Accord. Anyone got any idea who (else) signed on the dotted line to confirm their abject stupidity? Link or list would be great.

  22. Michael says:

    NYT getting a little huffy about the COP15 failure. No carbon(CO2) tax or sunspots for you NYT.

    “I don’t think that any political development in the United States means turning back nine years of political development on the climate change agenda,” de Boer said. “The change of one state from one party to another is not going to cause a landslide in the politics of the United States on the question of climate change.”

    U.S. Bound by Obama’s Copenhagen Emissions Pledge — U.N. Official
    http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/01/20/20greenwire-us-bound-by-obamas-copenhagen-emissions-pledge-17687.html

  23. E.M.Smith says:

    Why Cap & Trade will fail, and why the USA will hand nothing to other countrys for “climate debt”:

    Well, heard on the news that we have $12.3 TRILLION national debt in the USA and they want to raise the debt limit by another $1.9 TRILLION because when they raised by IIRC $1.4? TRILLION a few months ago they thought it would get them through a whole year … but it didn’t.

    Now the USA population is about 300 Million so we can take 12,000,000 / 300 = $40,000 per person or about $160,000 per family of 4 (2 adults, 2 children – really worse than that for the typical family since we have more than replacement rate kids…)

    So our Dim Dems want to add about $20,000+ per family per year to the national debt.

    I don’t know about you, but I don’t have a spare $20k / year to hand over in ADDED taxes. So anybody who buys those bonds is going to be given a great big NOTHING when they come due. (And the idea that I’m going to find a spare $160,000 before I die is laughable in the extreme…)

    So go ahead, EPA and California State, and go ahead Dim Congress. Whip out that credit card and go nuts. The faster this whole thing augers into the ground and the USA has to join California in filing bancruptcy, the sooner we can start over with a new crop of congress critters.

    Oh, and it would kind of bring to a halt handing out $Billions to various nutty causes and worse countries around the world.

    Note to China: Please loan us lots of money that we will NEVER pay back. We need it to, um, because, er, well, we just need it… “For the Children”…

    (And yes, I know that right now the US $ is rising, it is only a short term thing. A nice trade, but not a long term bright idea.)

    Sidebar: The state and local governments have their own $Billions of debt on the credit card. California has a DEFICIT of about $20 B (the actual estimate wander from $20 to $40 and I’ve heard $60B once including some unfunded obligations). So take that $160,000 and add to it about the same for “other government debt” AND about another $200,000 for unfunded social programs and unfunded obligations (i.e. Social Security that has no money but is obligated to a big ramp up in payments). You actually end up about $ 1/2 Million per family. Don’t know about you, but for my family that number is just insane.

    So the odds of those debts ever being repaid is roughly zero.

    As soon as the global debt markets realize that, well, lets just say that the result will not be pretty.

    Strangly, I don’t really care at this point if they want to load on a few dozen more $Trillion for nutty energy and health programs. Once you’ve decided not to pay the credit card bill and to just default on it; well, who cares what gets charged on it before it gets shut…

    So even if we hand countries buckets of pretty pieces of paper, they will get nothing of value out of it. We will pay our promisses with more, new, and prettier promisses ;-)

  24. Baa Humbug says:

    Oliver K. Manuel (22:09:51) :

    I spent the whole night reading John P Castello’s finely detailed account of the climategate emails. Fascinating, reads like a thriller novel. Would be a good tool in the hands of a barrister.
    Maybe the “hockey teams’s” future cellmates will appreciate discussions of temperature anomalies and ice core data.

  25. Long after AGW and Climate Justice have passed, there will be old, entrenched taxes as a legacy of the carbon bubble. These taxes will have names to make you forget their origin, but they won’t go away.

    Who would approve a “Tax on Giving Someone a Job”? Yet call it Payroll Tax and we accept it comfortably…whereas it’s as acceptable as doggie-do in your morning cornflakes.

  26. Michael says:

    “Senior General Motors executive Bob Lutz has slammed scientists and environmentalists, saying global warming has little
    to do with humans and more to do with solar flares and sunspots.”

    Global warming? Don’t Blame the Car
    http://smh.drive.com.au/motor-news/global-warming-dont-blame-the-car-20100121-mmry.html

  27. Roger Carr says:

    Time to dip into the WUWT? quote box:

    “The Alarmist fantasy world is a function of society’s massive accumulation of wealth.”

    An Opportunity for Europe in 2009 — JP (04:59:03)

  28. Michael says:

    “What does Scott Brown bring to the table in regards to using the global warming hoax as an excuse to tax the hell out of us, or to allow the UN to exert any power over U.S. citizens?

    On December 17 of last year, while campaigning for the Massachusetts Senate seat, the Boston Globe published his answer to the question, “Do you think that whole global warming thing is a big fraud?’’

    “It’s interesting. I think the globe is always heating and cooling,’’ he said. “It’s a natural way of ebb and flow. The thing that concerns me lately is some of the information I’ve heard about potential tampering with some of the information.’’

    Brown continued, saying: “I just want to make sure if in fact . . . the earth is heating up, that we have accurate information, and it’s unbiased by scientists with no agenda. Once that’s done, then I think we can really move forward with a good plan.’’

    Al Gore, Michael Mann, et al, meet Scott Brown.”

    Al Gore, Meet Senator Scott Brown
    http://www.climategate.com/al-gore-meet-senator-scott-brown

  29. Andrew P says:

    Jeef (23:19:53) :

    I’m in NZ. My stupid Prime Minister turned up to COP15 with an ETS law signed. One of very few. We’re also one of very few to sign the “Copenhagen Accord”.
    Sadly, despite my more than rudimentary search skills, five minutes has given me me no list of the signatories to the Copenhagen Accord. Anyone got any idea who (else) signed on the dotted line to confirm their abject stupidity? Link or list would be great.

    Scotland – though not a sovereign nation state so represented at COP15 by the UK government – passed a Climate Change Bill a few months before the farce in Copernhagen. I think we are now legally committed to something like a 42% redcution in emissions by 2020, or some other similarly ridiculous target. The government’s so called environmental protection agencies SNH and SEPA more hell bent than ever on approving every wind farm and ridiculous hydro-scheme they can (e.g. a 1MW scheme in the Birks of Aberfeldy which will ruin the Falls of Moness). During the recent cold spell the typical output from all the 3GW capacity of wind farms in Scotland was only about 150MW. The government is refusing to replace either of our aging nuclear stations. So we will need to keep burning coal if we want to keep the lights on, although with carbon sequestration technology we will have to burn an extra 40% just to make up for the inefficiency of the process. Our politicians are at best gullible idiots, and aside from Jim Sillars (who stood down from party politics a long time ago) we have no sceptics of any note.

  30. Jimbo says:

    mkurbo (22:51:40) :
    “Hey AGW proponents – It’s not going to happen, there is no money to underwrite your boondoggle any further. Pack it in and go find a green job…”

    As pointed out in an article (can’t recall where) I read last week that the “political climate is changing.” faster than climate change. – Australia, USA etc. The UNIPCC were trying to pull a fast one on us and the AGW bubble is unravelling week by week. It doesn’t get better than this.

  31. oxonmoron says:

    Can someone from the US answer this question? Who funds the EPA? I mean if the EPA seriously goes against the wishes of congress, could congress terminate EPA’s funding? Interesting though.

  32. DirkH says:

    Where are the green puppets, screaming “This is the last chance for humanity to avoid its fate! The planet’s a-gonna toast (and roast)!”? Marching up and down the street? Too cold? Come on kids it’s your last chance! You’ve got to take this serious because we don’t.

  33. Andrew P says:

    Sorry, I should have said “Scotland – though no longer a sovereign nation state…”. We blew that as well – just look at how well Norway has done.

  34. Expat in France says:

    So how much did the Copenhagen shambles cost everyone? Not to mention the blatant hypocrisy displayed by all those who used the very resources, and produced the very “carbon footprints” that they would have us surrender. Criminals, all of them.

  35. TonyB says:

    Interesting the spin that the BBC put on your headline, where you stated;

    “Copenhagen deal falters as just 20 countries of 192 sign up to declare their global warming strategies”

    The BBC reported along the lines of;

    “there is still great interest in doing a deal to combat climate change as over 20 countries have signed up to take action to reduce co2.”

    Put in the context of 192 countries that number is tiny. Intriguing use of words in order to put over their settled viewpoint.

    Tonyb

  36. artwest says:

    Finally, the faintest glimmer of real reporting at The Guardian when it comes to global warming.

    “…the Guardian has discovered the [IPCC Indian glacier] claim was questioned by the Japanese government before publication, and by other scientists.”

    It’s not much but, assuming that the journalist concerned hasn’t already been frogmarched out of the back door and shot, it could be a start.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/20/himalayan-glaciers-melt-claims-false-ipcc

  37. Andrew P says:

    I am not sure how we in Scotland compare per capita, but the debt situation in the USA is truly staggering – http://www.usdebtclock.org/ – if I was a US citizen I would be very worried indeed, as you will soon be struggling to pay back the interest, let alone the capital. And this debt disaster stems from the Bush era, though Obama doesn’t appear to concerned about it either. Note that http://www.usdebtclock.org/ is processor intensive – so don’t leave it on if you like to run your laptop cool.

  38. Kaboom says:

    E.M. Smith –

    You are going to repay through repatriation of your 401K’s into annuities, you are going to repay through taxes that 98% of Americans will never have to pay, like when you die, your house might be worth $800,000 unencumbered.

    The “death duties” will be, ummm…. {press keys on calculator}…. here we go, $800,000!

    The Socialist ability to invent and hone new and intricate taxes will simply astound you to despair.

    Count on it. Although, the folks of Massachusetts (sp?) deserve hearty congratulations on their new Senator-elect.

  39. Daniel H says:

    @Jeef

    The list of parties associated with the Copenhagen Accord does not appear to be publicly available. There is an article in today’s New York Times that at least attempts to quantify the number of countries that have sent letters of intent (the procedure for associating with the accord involves a government representative sending a letter of intent to the UNFCCC Secretariat). From the NYT article:

    “Fewer than two dozen countries have even submitted letters saying they agree to the terms of the three-page accord. And there has been virtually no progress on spelling out the terms of nearly $30 billion in short-term financial assistance promised to those countries expected to be hardest hit by climate change. Still unresolved are such basic questions as who will donate how much, where the money will go and who will oversee the spending.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/21/science/earth/21climate.html

    Translation: Of the 110 countries that crafted the Copenhagen Accord, less than 24 have actually agreed to be associated with it.

    I suspect that the majority of signatory nations are despotic banana republics that the UNFCCC would (understandably) rather keep out of the public eye. That’s why DeBoer has extended the deadline and will likely keep the list private until enough western nations have signed up to give the accord some semblance of legitimacy.

    @oxonmoron

    The United States Congress funds the EPA. The Congress has the power to amend the Clean Air Act to specifically exclude CO2 (and other GHG’s) from the EPA’s regulatory domain. If such an amendment were to pass then the EPA would be powerless to regulate CO2 emissions. There are currently two bills before Congress that propose to amend the Clean Air Act to exclude CO2 and other GHG’s from the EPA’s regulatory purview:

    H.R. 391: “To amend the Clean Air Act to provide that greenhouse gases are not subject to the Act, and for other purposes” by Rep. Marsha Blackburn [R-TN] http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-391

    H.R. 4396: “Save Our Energy Jobs Act” introduced by Rep. Earl Pomeroy [D-ND] http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-4396

    If you support these bills then write to your Representative and demand that he/she votes to pass them (unless your Representative is Pelosi, in which case I offer you my sincere and deepest condolences).

  40. Jason F says:

    Andrew P, also we have in Scotland our first minister, who whent to hoplesshagen with no ability to sign any treaty but did find a chum in the Maldives where he is planning to go on holiday, sorry a fact finding mission on global warming.

    Sup’ yer gravy Alex Salmond, sup it right up!
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/scotland/7038222/Alex-Salmond-accused-of-grandstanding-in-the-Maldives.html

  41. Bridget H-S says:

    I was reading the links about this story and saw this one on the Guardian website – do read the entire article, it is too funny. That pink footed goose is a really bad bird and should probably be added to that list about extinct species (except that it would be made compulsorily extinct). Doesn’t it realise the damage it is doing? Sometimes Nature is so irresponsible.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/20/pink-footed-goose-co2-villain

    The pink-footed goose: the bird with a carbon footprint four times larger than a patio heater.

    Unlike cows and sheep, the geese do not fart and burp out their sizable contribution to ­global warming. Rather, they free the carbon from the ground when they grub around in the Arctic soil for food.

  42. Christopher Hanley says:

    “……Interesting to note that the report states that India, Russia, Norway, France and Mexico have signed on…. and not very surprisingly, Australia, as well…..” Robert E. Phelan (22:59:32)

    Not very surprising indeed.

    Hollow man Rudd has a lively interest in empty gestures.

  43. AlanG says:

    OT, but comes under the heading of ‘amateur scientist beats professionals at their own game’. Here are some really beautiful astronomical pictures taken by an amateur with an 8 inch telescope from his garden shed. Worth a look: http://www.astropix.co.uk/

  44. Patrick Davis says:

    The Copenhagen failure (Although KRudd states that the “world” is commited to no more than a 2c rise in temperatures, I guess he must feel he can turn water into wine) has been noted here in Australian MSM however, the various players in Govn’t are set to ram through the Extra Tax Scheme regardless.

    Mr Rudd, you are firmin my prediction that you will be a one term PM.

  45. Alan the Brit says:

    Andrew P (00:01:17) :
    A point of information:-)The UK & all others in the EU were not Sovereign states at the time of the Copenhagen booze-up fest, we were all by the time (1st December 2009) mere provincial states in the new nation called Europe.

    This does show some glimmer of hope. I agree about the EPA, can’t someone clip its wings & embarrass it? Surely you guys could demand that to show an example, that members of the EPA all go through a de-Carbon Dioxide process & see how long they live without it!

    Had a really good laugh last night, Channel 4 screened “Sunshine” even with a foreword by Danny Boyle. Unbelievable! Not the film, but that people actually thought the script was credible in the first instance. As to the Film, Crappy plot, crappy acting (directing? the actors themselves aren’t entirely responsible), crappy special effects, didn’t see the end as I fell asleep thro’ boredom!

    On the good news front, favourite No 1 son brought back 10 x 60W eq CFLs for £1.00 on offer at Sainsbury’s, so I now have a cupboard full of the useless *%$£”!$£ things – 2 failed at the weekend after lasting well under their quoted life-span!

  46. Patrick Davis says:

    “Robert Townshend (23:45:33) :

    Who would approve a “Tax on Giving Someone a Job”? Yet call it Payroll Tax and we accept it comfortably…whereas it’s as acceptable as doggie-do in your morning cornflakes.”

    Are you Australian? We have a payroll tax here, plus a tax on cheque books and, if I recall correctly, there was a AU$0.06c tax on every AU$100 paid into a bank accounts (I admit, this was in 1998, and in Victoria, so I think with GST that all changed).

  47. Trefor Jones says:

    Yvo de Boer seemed to be in a state of self delusion yesterday on BBC Radio4’s prestigious PM programme. He stated incredulously that after much thought the Copenhagen Accord was actually a firm basis for progress rather than the absolute disaster that he had first thought. This article shows why, he can see the large pay cheques coming in for at least the next year as the catastrophic warming delusion continues.

  48. Andrew30 says:

    The National Post
    Temperature data skewed: researchers
    Richard Foot, Canwest News Service
    Published: Thursday, January 21, 2010

    Call it the mystery of the missing thermometers

    http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=2465893

    They lie and they know that they lie.

  49. inversesquare says:

    Leon Brozyna (22:22:49) :

    Those that can, do…

    Those that can’t, become bureaucrats and tell people what to do, when to do it, how to do it, and if it is permitted to do it…

    And in the surreal world the UN inhabits, its little hamster critters will keep on furiously racing in their little wheel, going nowhere and with nothing to show for all their frantic motions, except for promises to have another meeting.

    Dude…..those two paragraphs are pure GOLD!!

    Have a look at this one for a chuckle!!

    http://www.theonion.com/content/video/ambassador_stages_coup_at_un

  50. Les Francis says:

    Some of those democratic countries that have allegedly signed the accord might find that a change of government might ” unsign it” with the excuse that the signing was never ratified by a referendum of their people.

  51. Patrick Davis says:

    “AlanG (01:28:25) :

    OT, but comes under the heading of ‘amateur scientist beats professionals at their own game’. Here are some really beautiful astronomical pictures taken by an amateur with an 8 inch telescope from his garden shed. Worth a look: http://www.astropix.co.uk/

    Two Italian amatuers during the US space programs successfully determined the transmitter frequency based on the length of the antena on recovery capsules in media pictures. They tuned in, listened and recorded. They have (Still have, I am not sure.) hours and hours of radio communications. I think they had NASA fooled for a while (But that doesn’t appear to be too difficult these days).

  52. brc says:

    I thought the ‘accord’ was non-binding anyway. Besides, nobody met their Kyoto obligations and I don’t remember anything happening from that.

    So what does happen if you don’t obey a UN document that you’ve signed? Assuming you’re a ‘western’ nation and not a tin pot economy. It’s not like they’re going to send the troops in.

    I think I’d like to live in Norway or Switzerland. I know they are a bit crazy but they also have that two-fingers-to-the-rest-of-you attitude.

  53. inversesquare says:

    Les Francis (01:55:26) :
    Some of those democratic countries that have allegedly signed the accord might find that a change of government might ” unsign it” with the excuse that the signing was never ratified by a referendum of their people.

    Heh….if only!

    We kicked out our previous administration a year ago….(our Prime Minister is now third in command at the UN….please accept my apologies for that!).

    Guess what…….nothing changed!!

    We are one of those stupid countries that signed that ridiculous agreement at Copenhagen, they started taxing us months ago and at the end of last year, raised them a bit for some people and told some others that they were exempt.

    My house is now full of CFL’s and I very nearly had to change my shower head and hot water system….in the last year Fuel has had about 15cp/l more tax added to it….CO2, it’s a scary problem. Haven’t you heard?

    Apparently, we have to pay some people somewhere some money for some air we used in order to keep good with our Kyoto obligations….AWESOME!!

    As Borat would say: ‘Great Success USandA!! Hi Five!!’

    UK people have this to look forward to:
    http://www.andybarefoot.com/politics/cameron.php

  54. Patrick Davis says:

    “brc (02:24:43) :

    I thought the ‘accord’ was non-binding anyway. Besides, nobody met their Kyoto obligations and I don’t remember anything happening from that.”

    It laid the framework for “carbon trading systems” to be implemented, like the EU ETS deployed since about 2003 (I think) etc etc which vast sums of money has been raised (And massive fraud with it too), but that’s OK ‘coz it will save the planet our politicians have said so.

    In Australia, we met our “obligations” by preventing people from managing their land.

  55. kadaka says:

    Les Francis (01:55:26) :

    Some of those democratic countries that have allegedly signed the accord might find that a change of government might ” unsign it” with the excuse that the signing was never ratified by a referendum of their people.

    Why should they bother? The accord was just non-binding fluff, something to take home to justify the expense reports.

    Now the fight shifts back home, specifically with the “evil rich polluters” that are the “developed” nations. Now we see whether the legislation back home will stand or be repealed, in those countries who were willing to join the first charge and sacrifice anything to fight Climate Change, and are just now breaking through the smoke and fog to see the cliff edge…

  56. Scarlet Pumpernickel says:

    Who’s going to sign the end of the industrial revolution. This is worse then the people that tried to burn all the books in the library of Alexandra!

  57. View from the Solent says:

    “They can’t attack the science so they attack the chairman. But they won’t sink me. I am the unsinkable Molly Brown. In fact, I will float much higher”

    Comment by Rajendra Pachauri from here http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/20/ipcc-himalayan-glaciers-mistake.

    Via Tim Worstall. Whose headline says it all.

  58. Nick de Cusa says:

    Isn’t the USA the world’s only country where CO2 is offically declared a danger to health?

  59. Imran says:

    I stand by my prediction that by the end of this year it will be a political liability to even mention climate change.

  60. Al Gore's Holy Hologram says:

    “Had a really good laugh last night, Channel 4 screened “Sunshine” even with a foreword by Danny Boyle. Unbelievable! Not the film, but that people actually thought the script was credible in the first instance.”

    I was going to mention Sunshine this week but kept forgetting to. The premise of the movie was basically our skeptic position, hence the movie got almost no distribution even though it was a mainstream slasher fest. Imagine if State of Fear was adapted.

  61. tucker says:

    View from the Solent (03:26:24) :

    “They can’t attack the science so they attack the chairman. But they won’t sink me. I am the unsinkable Molly Brown. In fact, I will float much higher”

    Comment by Rajendra Pachauri

    ********************************

    Well, non-fully digested food also floats. That is probably a more apt description of Pachauri

  62. Patrick Davis says:

    “brc (02:24:43) :

    I thought the ‘accord’ was non-binding anyway. Besides, nobody met their Kyoto obligations and I don’t remember anything happening from that.”

    Kyoto laid the framework for carbon trading systems. The EU ETS is about the only one of any significance, along with all the fraud. It’s raised shedloads of cash, of which is being used to fund corporarte welfare, Govn’t revenue streams, or stealing in other words. But I guess it offsets the guilt of people in Europe. Shame it’s so cold up there right now, everyone guzzling all that power just to keep warm.

  63. Galen Haugh says:

    The UN is the temple of the Cult of Global Warming with outreach programs called Copenhagen 15 and Mexico City 16, which have been similar to past hysterical venues. Adherents include East Anglia, NASA, the NOAA, and even smaller organizations like Scripps.

    This cult teaches its AGW religion in the majority of university and grade schools across the world; it utilizes the Lame Stream Media to bolster its message and uses business leaders and politicians as pawns in the massive deception foisted on an unsuspecting and gullible world in their pursuit of power and money.

    Truly they embody the definition of a cult, which is: “an extreme or excessive admiration for a person, philosophy of life, or activity”, to the detriment of the occupants of this earth.

    Yet theirs is a cult doomed to failure as they embrace “beliefs regarded by others as misguided, unorthodox, extremist, or FALSE.”

    The truth shall prevail; Mother Nature will demonstrate it, honest researchers will report on it, and Denialists/Realists/Dissidents shall point it out. The masses will open their eyes and leave this cult in droves.

  64. Vincent says:

    Not to worry, the UK has already taken the lead and will be a beacon the the world. After nodding into law the 2009 climate change bill, one of the main planks of the legislation becomes operative this year – Carbon Reduction Commitment.

    All organisations with an annual energy usage of at least 6,000 MWhrs are required to participate. They must hand in an annual CO2 emission statement to the government and in April 2011 must buy certificates from the government at £12 for each ton of CO2. The income from this will be redistributed back to the participants based on how much CO2 they have saved the following year.

    By 2013 phase 2 kicks in. Whereas in phase 1, unlimited certificates will be available for £12/ton, in phase 2 the quantity will be capped at whatever level the government decides, and the certificates will be auctioned.

    The penalties for non compliance will be similar to that for non completion of company accounts and/or late payment or under payment of tax. Of course, a number of companies are standing to make a lot of money helping the bigger companies comply – you can see their ads on the internet. And all this extra cost will be in addition to the quadrupling of energy prices the OfGen report has now predicted for 2020.

    Isn’t it great that Britain is leading the way?

  65. Dave, UK says:

    Zis is all ze more reason vhy ve need GLOBAL GOVERNANCE.
    Mmmmhmmmhmmwha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

  66. Daniel H (00:46:41) :

    “Translation: Of the 110 countries that crafted the Copenhagen Accord, less than 24 have actually agreed to be associated with it.

    I suspect that the majority of signatory nations are despotic banana republics…”

    You got that right. Australia has signed apparantly.

  67. Anticlimactic says:

    Climategate and ‘Glaciergate’ at least give a fig leaf to cover any government’s embarrassment if they want to back away from Copenhagen.

    And also to back away from AGW in general : once a political party, usually in opposition, adopts an anti-AGW stance they can point to the destructive policies adopted by governments in power. As the majority of people seem to be generally skeptical it could be a vote winner : why harm the country for no real gain?

    AGW can only survive in a credulous and uncritical environment, but it also seems like the mainstream media is starting to grow in its’ opposition to AGW.

    I personally feel that we have passed a tipping point, and that AGW could crash to the ground quite rapidly, there is nothing holding it up.

  68. MrLynn says:

    Daniel H (00:46:41)

    . . . There are currently two bills before Congress that propose to amend the Clean Air Act to exclude CO2 and other GHG’s from the EPA’s regulatory purview:

    H.R. 391: “To amend the Clean Air Act to provide that greenhouse gases are not subject to the Act, and for other purposes” by Rep. Marsha Blackburn [R-TN] http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-391

    H.R. 4396: “Save Our Energy Jobs Act” introduced by Rep. Earl Pomeroy [D-ND] http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-4396

    If you support these bills then write to your Representative and demand that he/she votes to pass them (unless your Representative is Pelosi, in which case I offer you my sincere and deepest condolences).

    Unfortunately, my Congressman is none other than ‘Fast Eddie’ Markey (as WRKO’s Howie Carr calls him). I actually wasted time emailing him last month, suggesting he take another look at the myths surrounding CAGW, but of course never got a response.

    I don’t expect there is much chance of curtailing the renegade EPA in this Congress, but come November. . .

    /Mr Lynn

  69. David Segesta says:

    mkurbo (22:51:40) :

    “More important, the Scott Brown victory in Massachusetts is just the tip of a much larger iceberg. The tide is turning towards fiscal responsibility by government (because there is no more money)”…

    I wish you were correct about that but unfortunately it looks like congress plans to “solve” the problem by going deeper into debt:

    “Democrats seek to up debt ceiling by $1.9 trillion.
    Upping the ante just a day after losing their 60th Senate seat, Democrats moved Wednesday to seek a $1.9 trillion increase in the federal debt ceiling and give the Treasury adequate borrowing authority past November’s elections and into next year. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31759.html#ixzz0dFpBaSvQ

    The moral to this story is; never underestimate the ability of government to be incompetent, fiscally irresponsible, and totally clueless.

  70. Henry chance says:

    Flooding in California. They said devastating drought. This goes against the climate promise. What is convicted felon George Soros investing in? Does Joe Romm his sock puppet make a commission?

    I suspect Pachauri will approach several countries and use this as a mandate for them to acquuier consulting services from him.

    Our country can’t make the deadline. America hasn’t authorized the treaty in congress.

  71. dave ward says:

    Vincent (04:30:49) : said: “Isn’t it great that Britain is leading the way?” – Yes, further down the pan, again!
    It’s time to remove the word “Great” from Great Britain….

  72. Dario says:

    @ Patrick Davis:
    “Two Italian amatuers during the US space programs successfully determined the transmitter frequency based on the length of the antena on recovery capsules in media pictures. They tuned in, listened and recorded. They have (Still have, I am not sure.) hours and hours of radio communications. I think they had NASA fooled for a while (But that doesn’t appear to be too difficult these days)”

    Sorry if still OT, but the 2 amateurs (here in Turin) were also able to listen hours & hours of secret radio communications between Soviet cosmonauts and their bases in the USSR. In fact, they were able to hear the desperate calling for help from soviet cosmonauts trapped in their ships unable to return to the Earth…

    Just about eco-taxes, be aware of them! Once you’ve got a new tax, it will be really difficult to get free of it!

    Here in Italy, we are still paying a fuel tax lasting from the Ethiopian war in 1935 (1-9-3-5 !!!) and antoher one after a 1951 catastrophic flooding, as well as a 1968 earthquake in Sicily and so on….

    Just my 2 cents

  73. Vincent says:

    Mr Lynn
    ” I actually wasted time emailing him last month, suggesting he take another look at the myths surrounding CAGW, but of course never got a response.”

    Get on the phone. Don’t allow yourself to be fobbed off by an assistant. Demand you speak to your representative personally. Phone him every day – twice a day, and three times at weekends. Phone him when he’s in a meeting; phone him when he’s on the crapper; phone him at home. Never give up.

  74. Pamela Gray says:

    The Irony! Pachauri describes himself as a floater? That is absolutely the most outrageously funny thing I have heard during this entire sordid AGW mess!!!! This entire thing has been a joke and he is the punch line!

  75. Steve in SC says:

    Does anyone have a list of what countries are on board with this travesty?

  76. AdderW says:

    View from the Solent (03:26:24) :

    “They can’t attack the science so they attack the chairman. But they won’t sink me. I am the unsinkable Molly Brown. In fact, I will float much higher”

    Is that because he is full of gas?

  77. JohnH says:

    The New Mr Brown (no relation to our UK idiot Gordon I hope) is having an effect already.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/21/murkowski-congress-vote

    From the home of the pink footed Goose

  78. Pamela Gray says:

    In all this yee-hawing I am reading in the threads, that old worn out “It’s the Sun stupid” mentality is creeping in again. “By gum we don’t know how she does it but I kin tell its that thar Sun ‘cuz when she go down I git right cool!”

    People. let’s not go there, k?

  79. Al Gore's Brother says:

    From the Weather is not Climate department. It is coooooold in Hawaii this morning! Winter weather advisory atop Mauna Loa and Mauna Kea. I wonder if the highest levels of C02 ever recorded up there are to blame?

    In other news, how has the Kyoto Treaty held up? I don’t think any of the countries that signed on were able to reduce emissions anywhere near what they signed up for, so does an agreement really matter? Who enforces it? Apparently no one…

  80. To T says:

    For what it is worth I vote No. I don’t want to sign up. Thank you.

  81. pyromancer76 says:

    Good news. The UN IPCC fraud should never have happened. We — patriots and thoughtful citizens from all countries — need to follow up on Dubai’s offer to house the UN. Let’s make the New York property a monument to the real hard-working people — maybe a cutting-edge climate science park with interactive topics from paleo-climate issues to meteorological forecasting. Perhaps a well-designed, humorous exhibit could be entitled “Hide the Decline”. Perhaps projects highlighting how to teach science — the real thing — in schools at all levels would be good, too.

    The next effort of the “people’s movement” (not “Conservative”, not standard big-government, elitist Republicans — out Gingrich, out Rove) that began in the U.S. in New Jersey and Virginia, became ever more apparent in NY 23 (take that Scozzafava), and has now triumphed in Massachusetts with Scott Brown handily winning The People’s Seat), should be “Out of the United Nations”.

    Most members nations are “uniting” to defraud the prosperous nations and to belittle the U.S., representative democracy, and human rights. Let the losers and the fraudsters have it. Dubai, you asked for it! We can compare its efforts in Haiti to those of the U.S. military — who were so capable even the Obama bureaucracy told them to stop dispensing food.

    Also I think “knee-capping” the EPA is a fine effort. I hope the law suits can keep it occupied until the next administration significantly diminishes it.

  82. Henry chance says:

    What are the consequences for refusal to sign?
    What are the consequences of delaying the deadline?

  83. Don Keiller says:

    EPA has cracked down on greenhouse gas emissions by ruling that carbon dioxide and five other gases pose a danger to health.

    So why doesn’t this list include water vapour- the principal greenhouse gas?
    The EPA is being inconsistent and willfully ignoring “settled” science.

  84. Douglas DC says:

    Things seem to be unraveling fast here,could it be that the world does not want to commit econocide?(except possibly the US…?)

  85. Steve Oregon says:

    “Instead, the administration has been pressing ahead with steps to limit the US’s carbon emissions through regulation”

    That’s going to go over as well as moving GITMO trials to NYC.
    Or the last attempted amnesty.

    As soon as the EPA rhetoric attempts to shift to implementation a great big flop is going to happen.
    I suspect the EPA and Obama administration will recognize at the 11th hour the disaster in moving forward and will suspend that stunt just like Copenhaugen is now merely some European city.

  86. Jerry from Boston says:

    For those not familiar with the American political system:

    The problem with passing a bill to remove the EPA findings is you first need a simple majority of the House and Senate to approve such a bill. At that point, the law goes to Obama’s desk for action. If Obama signs the bill, it’s a done deal and becomes law.

    But if Obama vetoes the bill, the bill has to go back to the House and Senate and has to pass by a 2/3rds vote in both houses to over-ride Obama’s veto. Then Obama must then sign the bill and thereby make it law. He would have no choice.

    Of course, if the bill got 2/3rds approval by both houses on the first go-round, then vetoing would just delay the inevitable for Obama unless enough people in one or both houses are willing to change their mind and not go against Obama’s wishes so that one of the two houses don’t get the 2/3rds majority. It is politically dicey to pull that last stunt as Clinton found out when he got virtually veto-proof majorities for the Welfare Reform Act which he opposed. Clinton gritted his teeth, signed the Act and then took credit for the successful results of the Act.

    The problem here is that the ideologue Obama will likely veto any bill that gets to his desk if the bill passes without a 2/3rds majority in both houses. He can calculate that the Democratic hold on both houses is strong enough that at least one house won’t get the 2/3rds majority for an over-ride. So the bill would die after the House and Senate votes and the EPA restrictions would take effect. The danger for Obama is that a number of Reps and Senators facing re-election in November elections may want to boster their creds for independence by voting for the bill after the veto. If the 2/3rds still don’t show up, then the consequences of the EPA mandates will become associated with Obama (and those who voted against the bill) and all the consequences are on his and his acolytes’ shoulders.

    This, of course, assumes that the law suits don’t get the EPA diktats thrown out for one reason or another. And there’s always the possibility that Obama can simply tell the EPA to back off since the EPA is part of the Executive Branch of government and Obama may not want to take the heat or have this disaster as part of his legacy.

    And one last possibility is that the EPA has to go back to Congress because the Clean Air Act dictates, IIRC, that all generators of 250 tons per year of a specific pollutant are to be regulated by the CAA. And CO2 is now deemed such a pollutant. This would crush every enterprise down to small multi-unit apartment buildings. The EPA isn’t completely stupid. They know this would cause major hurt for hundreds of thousands if not millions of enterprises across the country. The EPA wants the threshold to be brought up to 25,000 TPY (which would include the 30,000 biggest enterprises in the U.S.), but I don’t think they can modify CAA pollutant threshold requirements without Congressional approval. If the Repubs want to play hard ball, they may let the Dems approve this change on a party-line vote and then let all the big enterprises decide who they’ll make campaign contributions to in the next election – the Dems who are crushing them or the Repubs who stood by them from the get-go. And that will go doubly for the employees of the biggest enterprises who get laid off or see their companies get hurt competitively because of the EPA. Of course, the Repubs may decide that this change in thresholds is reasonable and vote for it. But they’d also face the same problem as the Dems – penalizing the biggest enterprises and putting them in a less competitive position versus the enterprises just below the threshold who got a pass on the rules. Follow the campaign money.

    We are living in interesting times.

  87. P Gosselin says:

    Sorry about the multiple posts, but I now have the link I want:

  88. wws says:

    I have a “soft deadline” for everyone I know to give me $100

    So like, whenever you all feel like it, get in touch with me or something.

  89. David Segesta says:

    “Whatever route is taken, the president of the United States committed to a 17 percent emissions reduction in Copenhagen,” de Boer said. “The president of the United States committed to more ambitious emissions reductions for 2030 and 2050. And it is those statements to which the international community will hold the government of the United States accountable.”

    Whoa there Mr. DeBoer! The US Constitution grants no such power to the president except for treaties but only when 2/3 of the Senate concurs. I don’t think he is going to get the 2/3 now. So you can take Obama’s promise and shove it.

  90. jjs says:

    should be the end of the idea of one Global Governence also. Pound sand UN comes to mind….

  91. Son of a Pig and a Monkey says:

    Not quite where this fits into the mix but the Guardian (ha! Ha!) reports that US Senator Murkowski (Alaska) is putting forth bill to strip the EPA of its abilities to regulate in this regard (which would limit the executive branch in general)

  92. Sharon says:

    @Jerry from Boston

    That was a very good summary of the possible legislative scenarios for overturning of the EPA’s (absurd) finding re CO2.

    Myself, I am content to let the current legal challenges hinder any EPA attempt to implement regulation until after the bloodbath that will inflicted upon the Dems in the November 2010 congressional elections.

    If healthcare reform, a much more publicized and important issue, is now apparently DOA for this Congress, Cap’n Trade (yo-ho-ho and a bottle o’ AGW Kool-Aid) has just fallen way farther down the priorities list, if not off the gang-plank altogether.

  93. nigel jones says:

    Anticlimactic (05:42:28) :

    “And also to back away from AGW in general : once a political party, usually in opposition, adopts an anti-AGW stance they can point to the destructive policies adopted by governments in power. As the majority of people seem to be generally skeptical it could be a vote winner : why harm the country for no real gain?”

    That’s logical, but in the UK we have three main political parties, Conservative,Labour and LibDem and they are all fully signed up to AGW. Note the near unanimity with which the Climate Change Bill was passed recently.

    With the Conservatives, the membership appears to be sceptical but the leadership is not. Cameron nailed his colours to the AGW mast early on and is known as Windmill Dave, Glacier Hugging Dave etc. His enthusiasm isn’t shared by much of the party hence the recent decision to send election candidates on a “green course”.

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4c33e386-0468-11df-8603-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1

    I get the impression that it’s much the same in other countries. The leadership of main political parties is pro AGW legislation, a few politicians disagree, the public is becoming increasingly fed up with what they see as an excuse for taxes and useless schemes. There’s a growing disconnect between the politicians and the public, but there’s no clear practical choice on the matter in elections.

    In the UK, much of the environmental legislation is a direct result of EU legislation and I don’t see any party likely to form a government defying it.

    I’d agree with you that when a gap between the public and its elected representatives gets too wide, it has to close eventually, but there’s no sign of that happening any time soon.

    “why harm the country for no real gain?”

    This is no place to talk about that, but suffice it to say it doesn’t seem to be a watertight consideration when you look at politicians’ actions.

  94. James Chamberlain says:

    There are still people calling in on various programs on NPR (well, not the most moderate of stations, I know) absolutely FREAKING OUT that the world is going to come to an end because we are not doing things fast enough in regards to “carbon”. They are quite serious and scared. It’s a shame.

  95. SteveS says:

    ‘Canned’ Greenism

  96. Andrew P says:

    Alan the Brit (01:33:27) :

    Andrew P (00:01:17) :
    A point of information:-)The UK & all others in the EU were not Sovereign states at the time of the Copenhagen booze-up fest, we were all by the time (1st December 2009) mere provincial states in the new nation called Europe.

    Alan – yes but I was refering to Scotland pre 1707 – before the Act of Union with England! I agree with about the EU – and so regret that the people of Scotland didn’t/don’t have the guts to go for real independence and stay out of the EU like Norway.

  97. rbateman says:

    Pamela Gray (06:46:20) :

    We live in a biosphere, and in that biosphere life is responsible for both impounding and releasing C02, and that life is Carbon-based. So are external and internal energy systems that are not alive, yet very active. And changing.
    We do not live on a Planet that has only animal life that expels C02, nor do we live on a Planet with no external(solar) and internal heat (geologic).

    AGW was founded on the assumption (making an ass out of everyone) that only animal life (man in particular) affects the balance of energy.
    Let’s call it a badly misguided oversimplification.
    Whatevery energy is in this Planetary/Solar System/Galactic soup has been imparted long ago. Gravity conspired to create the anomaly of the Milky Way, then the Solar System proto-disc, then the Sun & bodies, and finally the balance of the 3rd planet through condensation to anomaly.
    We could say
    “It’s gravity, stupid”, but people need to know what we are talking about.
    As far as the Earth presently and for the next 5 billion years, “It’s the Sun, stupid” that regulates the overall changes on Earth, not the internal species of man or his wild imaginations, holding the balance between the hostile Galactic energy-sources and the biospheric energy-transfer systems.
    To really boil it down, “It’s the Sun, stupid” is humbling anathema to “AGW”.
    Man is along for the ride.
    We are the dominant species in this biosphere, but we do NOT control the biosphere, internally or externally.

  98. LarryOldtimer says:

    Wealth = (Value of assets – debt), last time I noticed. Material goods purchased by going into debt do not equal wealth, but are mere trappings or appearances of wealth. Simple economics, which “economists” seem to have forgotten all about.

  99. rbateman says:

    James Chamberlain (09:03:46) :

    Those people have been scared by others who contrived to keep them in the dark and feed them garbage.
    The HG Wells story “The Time Machine” fits into this, in a way.
    They have been farmed like mushrooms, to be harvested, a human crop, by the intellectual Morlocks of our time, to do thier bidding.

    Cold reality of a cooling climate will be the educator now.
    They’ll understand what’s going on just as soon as they get shocked into examing the world around them.

  100. Jerry from Boston says:

    As a follow-up to my earlier post, if I understand the latest news:

    In a dramatic development today, the U.S. Supreme Court just rejected just about all features of the Campaign Finance Reform Act (McCain-Feingold) and now allows commercial and non-profit enterprises (which would include unions) virtually unfettered contributions to run partisan ads during local, state and national political campaigns, provided such ads are clearly identified as to their origins and funding sources. These enterprises can can now work for and against any political campaigns or referenda using funds out of their general budget. This means that affected commercial enterprises can now enter the political fight against cap-and-trade and, I think, advocate changes to or abolishment of the EPA rules.

    This, I believe, is HUGE! Anyone else have any thoughts on the implications of this development?

  101. kadaka says:

    The Copenhagen accord deadline, for an unworkable solution to an imaginary problem that only makes sense in some fantasy world somewhere, has gone soft.

    So to restore the fantasy and make the deadline hard again, take the blue pill.

    (Copenhagen, The Matrix, and pharmaceuticals all coming together; one of the many interconnects that just keep “popping up” to persuade me that true randomness does not exist in this reality, everything is connected.)

  102. Gail Combs says:

    Doug (22:34:34) :

    “I’m willing to bet this push by the EPA to classify CO2 as a “pollutant” will further damage the Democrats in the eyes of independent voters. How the administration back tracks and extricates itself from this wrong turn will be fascinating to watch.”

    Heck Brown’s election by the Peoples Republic of Taxachusetts show even the more sane democrats are waking up. The Democratic party has been a trojan horse for a long time, for example the 1913 Federal reserve Act was sponsored by a democrat. I wonder how many long time democratic Congress critters will lose their seats in November.

  103. Gail Combs says:

    Michael (23:22:29) :

    “NYT getting a little huffy about the COP15 failure. No carbon(CO2) tax or sunspots for you NYT.

    “I don’t think that any political development in the United States means turning back nine years of political development on the climate change agenda,” de Boer said. “The change of one state from one party to another is not going to cause a landslide in the politics of the United States on the question of climate change.””

    deBoer has absolutely no knowledge of Massachusetts. That state was so far down the socialist path over 20 years ago that a friend, a card carrying Communist – I kid you not, had to register as a republican in the city of Cambridge so there were enough “republicans” to work the polls and voting could take place. The state is not just democratic it is solidly socialist with a large communist population. You have to live there to really understand just how far to the left it really is.

    The fact that a republican actually won is mind blowing.

  104. Gail Combs says:

    E.M.Smith (23:38:21) :

    Why Cap & Trade will fail, and why the USA will hand nothing to other countrys for “climate debt”:…..

    Very well put.

    Paul Craig Roberts former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury put it this way:
    “I am amazed that the US government, in the midst of the worst financial crises ever, is content for short-selling to drive down the asset prices that the government is trying to support….The bald fact is that the combination of ignorance, negligence, and ideology that permitted the crisis to happen still prevails and is blocking any remedy. Either the people in power in Washington and the financial community are total dimwits or they are manipulating an opportunity to redistribute wealth from taxpayers, equity owners and pension funds to the financial sector.” http://www.countercurrents.org/roberts250209.htm

    Stewart Dougherty, a specialist in inferential analysis, says it in one sentence. “It is now “statistically impossible for the United States to pay its obligations”. http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/08.09/metastasis.html

    The USA has been bankrupted by Congress and they are just trying to suck the last of our money from us. Hopefully China will not invade, or maybe that is why Obama has so many US troops half a world away….Time to start firing bureaucrats and Congress critters.

  105. Mike Ramsey says:

    oxonmoron (00:05:03) :

    Can someone from the US answer this question? Who funds the EPA? I mean if the EPA seriously goes against the wishes of congress, could congress terminate EPA’s funding? Interesting though.

    The USA Federal government is broken up into three co-equal branches

    – Congress (Legislative branch, consisting of the Senate and the House of Representitives)

    – President (Executive branch, currently Obama)

    – Supreme Court (Judaical branch, appointed (for life) by the President and confirmed by the Senate)

    All of the agencies and departments, including EPA, are under the Executive branch.  The president appoints the Agency heads and the Senate approves them.

    Given that the executive branch and Congress are in the control of the same party it is currently unlikely that EPA is going against the wishes of the majority of the Congress.  This doesn’t mean that the President and Congress aren’t both going against the wishes of the American people.  Elections in November; stay tuned.

    Congress has to pass a budget and yes, EPA could be stripped of funding by the Congress.  The President could veto the bill at which point there is a lot of finger pointing until a compromise is worked out.

    Mike Ramsey

  106. Gail Combs says:

    oxonmoron (00:05:03) :

    Can someone from the US answer this question? Who funds the EPA? I mean if the EPA seriously goes against the wishes of congress, could congress terminate EPA’s funding? Interesting though.

    Actually I would like to see the whole department killed and let the states deal with the pollution problem. Now we have the feds AND the states. And yes Congress has to vote to fund each department.

  107. Anticlimactic says:

    nigel jones (08:50:41)

    I live in the UK and I know there is no choice at the moment [apart from UKIP!]. I intend to email the leader of the party I usually support urging a rethink with measured arguments [Not in the Lord Monckton/Piers Corbyn way! They really do need some PR training to tone down their abrasive style!].

    The Tories may switch if they see votes in it and the AGW case continues to be publically weakened. I think a BBC survey last November suggested over 50% of the UK were ‘non-believers’ in AGW, and that was before the recent weather. The main question is whether being anti-AGW is a vote LOSER.

    I did think of standing as a candidate in my constituency on a purely anti-AGW platform, just to give a choice, but I am not sure about the costs or even how to go about it!

    I was thinking of the Liberal party in Australia, and the Republicans in the US. I really did not want this subject to be a political one but evidence and common sense does not seem to be swaying the minds of those in power, so we have to get rid of them.

    I am still intrigued that it was the Murdoch press which broke ‘Glaciergate’, on three continents! He is a US citizen for business reasons, he has a large UK business, and is Australian by birth, so if he believes AGW policies are harmful to those countries he may swing the might of his empire against it. It would be a very easy target and would be likely sell to sell newspapers [he is a businessman!]. People must be getting fed up being told they must make more and more sacrifices to save the world, if someone comes along and says ‘No you don’t, it’s a fraud, here’s how’ it’s going to sell well!

  108. Gail Combs says:

    Andrew P (00:25:11) :

    I am not sure how we in Scotland compare per capita, but the debt situation in the USA is truly staggering – http://www.usdebtclock.org/ – if I was a US citizen I would be very worried indeed, as you will soon be struggling to pay back the interest, let alone the capital. And this debt disaster stems from the Bush era, though Obama doesn’t appear to concerned about it either….”

    The blame goes all the way back to 1913 and the Federal Reserve Act when Congress gave the EUROPEAN Central bankers (Paul Warburg) control of the US economy and money supply.

    It was Bill Clinton who wrecked the economy beyond repair on November 2 ,1999 with the repeal of Glass-Stegall which tore down the wall between investment banks and S&Ls. Barney Frank (D-Mass) also has his fingerprints all over the mess with the passage of the Community Reinvestment Act which required lenders to make risky loans to low-income minorities to purchase housing. Clinton also ratified the World Trade Organization and exported US jobs and manufacturing overseas replacing them with cheap tariff-free imported goods. The USA had less manufacturing jobs in 2005 than it did in 1970 so we as a country stopped creating wealth.

    Or you can go further back

    “Of mergers and acquisitions each costing $1 million or more, there were just 10 in 1970; in 1980, there were 94; in 1986, there were 346. A third of such deals in the 1980’s were hostile. The 1980’s also saw a wave of giant leveraged buyouts. Mergers, acquisitions and L.B.O.’s, which had accounted for less than 5 percent of the profits of Wall Street brokerage houses in 1978, ballooned into an estimated 50 percent of profits by 1988… THROUGH ALL THIS, THE HISTORIC RELATIONSHIP between product and paper has been turned upside down. Investment bankers no longer think of themselves as working for the corporations with which they do business. These days, corporations seem to exist for the investment bankers…. In fact, investment banks are replacing the publicly held industrial corporations as the largest and most powerful economic institutions in America…. THERE ARE SIGNS THAT A VICIOUS spiral has begun, as each corporate player seeks to improve its standard of living at the expense of another’s.
    Corporate raiders transfer to themselves, and other shareholders, part of the income of employees by forcing the latter to agree to lower wages.”
    January 29, 1989 http://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/29/magazine/leveraged-buyouts-american-pays-the-price.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all New York Times

    “The Grace Commission report notes that 100% of personal income tax goes to pay interest on the national debt, the lion’s share of which goes to the banking cartel that we know as the Federal Reserve.” http://www.bloggernews.net/17032

    The Democrats and the Republicans are in bed with the central bankers just like the politicians in Europe. The name of the game is to tax the peasants to the point of revolt and hope you do not have to deal with madame guillotine. Since the powers behind the politicians are largely unknown they really do not care if the peasants revolt and take out some of the politicians, there are always more greedy fools like Al Gore around.

    “John Sherman, quotes about Rothschild:
    The few who could understand the system will either be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favours, that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of the people mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests.”
    http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quotes_about/rothschild

  109. Gail Combs says:

    Sharon (08:22:29) :

    “…If healthcare reform, a much more publicized and important issue, is now apparently DOA for this Congress, Cap’n Trade (yo-ho-ho and a bottle o’ AGW Kool-Aid) has just fallen way farther down the priorities list, if not off the gang-plank altogether.”

    The last economic suicide bill of the democrats is Waxman’s “Food Safety Enhancement Act” or the corporate food supply take over bill. I hope we can kill that one too.

    This article gives the technical details of why this is such a bad bill. The Festering Fraud Behind Food Safety Reform. by Nicole Johnson: http://www.foodsafetynews.com/contributors/nicole-johnson/

  110. Pamela Gray says:

    rbateman. Ya lost me. I am one to follow the easily observed trail where it leads, not make lofty theories about the cosmos. What made today warm? And what made that happen? And where did that then come from? Just keep working backwards. Repeat. Day after day. Year after year. Decade after decade. Do this often enough, store the data, and weather variations as well as trends and patterns begin to form from which statistical probability statements can be made (and are made): given a set of atmospheric and oceanic conditions, weather will be generally “thus” till such a time as these conditions change.

    In that context, the Sun is a steady state entity for the purposes of talking about the huge up and down swings of our global climate systems. The Earth is the source of the large changes in weather patterns because the mechanism is there and is verifiable. Find an equally strong verifiable mechanism emanating from the Sun and I will contemplate your opposing description. Otherwise your post was just a bunch of ill-explained “out there” theories that cannot be used with any kind of observable verification to explain the weather patterns we have had over the past 200 or so years.

    I guess I like my science cooked up meat and potatoes style.

  111. Pamela Gray says:

    My post above can be expanded on by visiting the following website. I prefer statistical models over the dynamical models, and indeed, the dynamical models are being measured against what are considered the gold standard statistical models for weather and climate forecasting.

    http://iri.columbia.edu/climate/ENSO/currentinfo/SST_table.html

  112. Patrick Davis says:

    “Dario (06:19:01) :

    Here in Italy, we are still paying a fuel tax lasting from the Ethiopian war in 1935 (1-9-3-5 !!!) and antoher one after a 1951 catastrophic flooding, as well as a 1968 earthquake in Sicily and so on….”

    Well, Italy did invade Ethiopia, and Italians did steal many cultural, religeous and historical artifacts from places like Axum (Ok, the largest Steele was returned in 2005 thanks to a Russian transport), so I don’t have a problem with that IMHO.

  113. p.g.sharrow "PG" says:

    The sun’s output is not steady state. In all forms of energy output it is variable. The amount of variability is well now measured. However the sun’s effect on the earth’s weather and climate is in question and not settled science. Many of those in the study of the sun claim that there is not enough variability to explain the changes in earth climate. That is science. It is not settled yet.

  114. rbateman says:

    Pamela Gray (17:44:00) :

    The point is to get people to look for themselves, and stop allowing agendas to spoon-feed them. There is a lot both terrestrial and extra-terrestrial to look at and think about. ‘It’s the sun, stupid’ is a very good way to start the process of getting people out of thier comfort zone that says ‘science is just too hard for me’. Immediately, one thinks of ‘It’s the economy stupid’, and people begin to understand. They remember the ‘you can’t possibly understand’ excuse that was being peddled by the fallen financial wizards.
    So it is with AGW’s proprietary and secret formulas.
    ‘It’s the Sun, stupid’ tells ordinary folks to dig in, they have been lying to you.

    But, having said all that, if you can think of a better way to get people to dig in for themselves in a short, easy to remember phrase, let’s roll it.

  115. Dave, UK says:

    @ Pamela Gray (06:46:20) :

    In all this yee-hawing I am reading in the threads, that old worn out “It’s the Sun stupid” mentality is creeping in again. “By gum we don’t know how she does it but I kin tell its that thar Sun ‘cuz when she go down I git right cool!”

    People. let’s not go there, k?

    I’ll go wherever I want, and I won’t be dictated to by scientifically illiterate fascists, especially not the crooked UNIPCC, and certainly not by people who come out with such stupidly prejudiced statements as you did. K?

  116. Mark.R says:

    NEW ZEALAND signed up last weekend about the 29/1/10.

Comments are closed.