Latest extortion attempt from Durban COP17: $1.6 Trillion

Gosh. Who knew that a massive tax could solve all imagined climate problems?

David L. Hagen writes:

The UN is demanding control over $1.6 trillion per year to control climate. See Section 47 in draft # FCCC/AWGLCA/2011/CRP.39 9 December 2011 #GE.11-71576 at: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/awglca14/eng/crp39.pdf

47.  The provision of the amount of funds to be made available annually to developing country Parties, which shall be equivalent to the budget that developed countries spend on defence, security, and warfare. Fifty per cent of that amount shall be for adaptation, 20 per cent for mitigation, 15 per cent for technology development and transfer and 15 per cent for forest-related actions in developing country Parties;

See Reuters: Worldwide military spending edged up in 2010 to a record $1.6 trillion, a leading think-tank said on Monday. Source: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute’s military expenditure database. http://www.sipri.org/research/armaments/milex/research/armaments/milex/milex_database . . .

Until then, the immediate urgent task is to provide alternative fuels while caring for the poor.Conventional climate mitigation comes in dead last in benefit/cost.”

About these ads
This entry was posted in Durban Climate Conference and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

188 Responses to Latest extortion attempt from Durban COP17: $1.6 Trillion

  1. Latitude says:

    These guys are really inept….
    …I could control the climate for 1/2 that

  2. Kaboom says:

    They can have $1.60, final offer

  3. Louise says:

    I followed the links and wasn’t able to spot where the UN demanded control over $1.6 trillion – could you please quote the relevant text?

    TIA

  4. d says:

    Its just a matter of time before it becomes clear to all that money, greed , power and control is a major facter in “climate change”

  5. tallbloke says:

    The EU has wasted over 1/4 billion Euro on propping up the european carbon market already. That cash could have rebuilt all coal fired generating plant with filters and reduced co2 emissions 30%.

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/11/28/ubs-report-europes-287bn-carbon-waste/

  6. Richard Sharpe says:

    Louise says on December 10, 2011 at 9:05 am

    I followed the links and wasn’t able to spot where the UN demanded control over $1.6 trillion – could you please quote the relevant text?

    TIA

    It follows logically from:

    47. The provision of the amount of funds to be made available annually to developing country Parties, which shall be equivalent to the budget that developed countries spend on defence, security, and warfare. Fifty per cent of that amount shall be for adaptation, 20 per cent for mitigation, 15 per cent for technology development and transfer and 15 per cent for forest-related actions in developing country Parties;

    and

    See Reuters: Worldwide military spending edged up in 2010 to a record $1.6 trillion, a leading think-tank said on Monday. Source: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute’s military expenditure database. http://www.sipri.org/research/armaments/milex/research/armaments/milex/milex_database . . .

  7. I gather that a hoax document has been circulating at Durban… the BBC was taken in (no surprise there then) but admitted as much at lunchtime news today. I suggest we take care about all this.

  8. phinnie the woo says:

    well let them have it, the mechanism is very peculiar and all ways lead to Rome :
    1.99% of that trillion disappears in various cleptocrats’ pockets
    2.the cleptocrats buy funds with bonds, from financial wizzards
    3.these bond buyers go for the highest and safest returns on the market
    4.the highest and safest returns are with the countries that do not subscribe to this mess
    5.the rest collapses slowly like pieces of glaciers in a hot polar sea
    6.so in the end all the money and power ends up where it should.

    gaiia cares about you
    Hv a nice day, for the rest (eat a banana or something, but remember to put off the peel)

  9. JustaMom says:

    Louise,

    …” which shall be equivalent to the budget that developed countries spend on defence, security, and warfare”…

    How much is that?

    Follow the links provided.

    Then watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dtbn9zBfJSs

    If we are going to spend money to solve problems…lets start with real ones first.

  10. Joe Crawford says:

    It’s a rather sad statement about by the human race in general, but, “money, greed , power and control” are the driving factors in most things. The objective is to corral those and steer them into something useful for the general public without doing too much damage from the always present unintended consequences.

  11. J.H. says:

    Louse…… It’s in section 47….. you must have missed reading that bit….:-) Pretty nutty stuff if you ask me.

  12. Curiousgeorge says:

    It’s time to send some ‘family’ guys over to the UN to make them an offer they can’t refuse.

  13. John M says:

    I think it’s quite clear now why some folks love “consensus” so much.

    “The convention operates by consensus, and the package will not be put up for a vote.”

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iJqoXEe6pnFE0rqNqFQCTFxjLodw?docId=ac792149118f4fc9b8b0d3e330f579fb

  14. Ed Scott says:

    The Messiah of the United States has lowered the sea level, so the compaints about the sea level rising are without merit.

    UN/IPCC “scientists” should draw-up plans for capping Carbon Dioxide sources such as Mauna Loa – now experiencing a series of tremors which creates fear of an explosive eruption – and Mount Etna, not to mention Katla and Eyjafjallajokull (five times rapidly) in Iceland.

    Actually, this would be a project more suitable to the expertise of Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu, of white-wash the Earth fame.
    ———————————————————————————————————————
    States imperilled by warming rebel at climate talks
    http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2011/12/10/worldupdates/2011-12-10T053052Z_5_TRE7B81MV_RTROPTT_0_UK-CLIMATE&sec=Worldupdates

    Scientists say those promises are not yet enough to limit global warming to the two degrees Celsius judged necessary to stave off the most devastating effects of climate change.

    U.N. reports released in the last month show time is running out. A warming planet has already intensified droughts and floods, increased crop failures and sea levels could rise to levels that would submerge several small island nations.

    The protracted talks frustrated delegates from small islands and African states, who joined a protest by green groups outside as they tried to enter the main negotiating room.

    “You need to save us, the islands can’t sink. We have a right to live, you can’t decide our destiny. We will have to be saved,” Maldives climate negotiator Mohamed Aslam said.

  15. Philip Foster says:
    December 10, 2011 at 9:23 am

    “I gather that a hoax document has been circulating at Durban… the BBC was taken in (no surprise there then) but admitted as much at lunchtime news today….”

    Philp, can you be more specific? What was the document? What was the hoax? What, specifically, did the BBC admit? Any links?

  16. Louise says:

    So you all think the word ‘invite’ actually means ‘demand’ – wow, I knew there were some differences between American and British English but I’d missed that one.

  17. Otter says:

    Considering what Oh!Bummer! spent (sorry, Wasted) in ONE year, he should have no probs whatsoever shelling out 1.6 Trillion.

  18. Brian Johnson uk says:

    Surely if there is a financial crisis and countries are seeing many of their workers being laid off does anyone know how many UN bureaucrats/politicians/advisors/lobbyists will be ‘let go’?

    Just heard a pin drop so I take it that’s NONE then?

  19. Leon Brozyna says:

    It’s never been about the climate.

    It’s always been about us uppity peasants having a life style too similar to that of our “betters”. What’s the point of having a mansion and a house by the shore, if us peasants can have the same thing, albeit on a smaller scale … central heating, electricity 24/7 on demand, flat screen TV’s, cell phones, iPads. Heck, us peasants have even destroyed that special province of the elite … air travel … till it’s as bad as traveling by Greyhound bus. And don’t even start on National Parks with all those swarms of peasants ruining the splendor of Nature at her finest.

  20. M.A.Vukcevic says:

    Grant Foster (who is often masquerading as Tamino ) statistician and a pretend climate scientist published a paper
    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/pdf/1748-9326_6_4_044022.pdf
    in time for Durban. His graph (Fig.5, page 3) is rubbish, and the paper absolute nonsense.

  21. Anthony Watts says:

    Vuk – care to elaborate on why its rubbish?

  22. björn says:

    This “fake document” is interesting. The BBC underscores how obviously fake it was which makes me believe it may be real. Does anyone know more?

  23. Ed Scott says:

    I failed to properly address the concern over islands sinking. The Messiah only has control over rising sea levels, not sinking land.

    I agree that they have a right to live and we can’t decide their destiny, but neither can they decide our destiny and their destiny is their responsibility as is our destiny our responsibility.

    That they have to be saved is a dependency welcomed by the omnipotent Messiah of the United States.

    How many US$ trillions do you need. Its only printed paper.

    ———————————————————————————————————————
    “You need to save us, the islands can’t sink. We have a right to live, you can’t decide our destiny. We will have to be saved,” Maldives climate negotiator Mohamed Aslam said.

  24. u.k.(us) says:

    Latitude says:
    December 10, 2011 at 8:58 am
    These guys are really inept….
    …I could control the climate for 1/2 that
    ========
    LOL

  25. Downdraft says:

    We need to pull out of the U.N. before some liberal, gullible, know-it-all, inexperienced, nanny-state U.S. President decides we should actually do something the U.N. wants us to do, like spreading the wealth by forking over what he/she thinks is our “fair share” for world governance.

    Oops.

  26. Bloke down the pub says:

    47. The provision of the amount of funds to be made available annually to developing country Parties, which shall be equivalent to the budget that developed countries spend on defence, security, and warfare.

    Note that that is the amount spent by developed countries on defence, not the $1.6 trillion spent worldwide. Either way that’s a lot to spend on parties even for the UN.

  27. vigilantfish says:

    For all you WUWTers who have been envying the denizens of Canada for the stance of our great leader, Stephen Harper, in refusing to sign on to the Durban nonsense, take consolation. The green energy policies of “Premier Dad” of Ontario, the sanctimonious Dalton McGuinty who has never heard of a progressive cause that he will turn down, are going to bankrupt the province and impoverish Ontarians. We’re right up there with California and the UK in terms of ridiculous, expensive and destructive renewable energy policies.

    As Lawrence Solomon writes in today’s Financial Post:

    “According to a peer-reviewed study earlier this year by University of Guelph economist Glenn Fox and retired banker Parker Gallant, two Energy Probe directors, by 2018 the average ratepayer’s annual electricity bill will exceed $4,000, making Ontario one of the highest-cost electricity jurisdictions in the developed world.”

    Solomon, a long-time opponent of nuclear power, at least concedes that ‘renewables’ are a far worse monster in terms of money down the drain for rate-payers. See:

    http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/12/09/lawrence-solomon-the-green-goliath-takes-on-nuclear/

    At least Harper, who is a keen ‘policy wonk’ and numbers man, won’t further drag us down by signing Canada on to this UN extortion scheme.

  28. John M says:

    “17. Reduce global greenhouse gas emissions more than 100 per cent by 2040 by Annex
    I Parties”

    Huh?

  29. Peter Miller says:

    Assuming the story is true, can you imagine the amount of money that would be annually ‘liberated’ from this fund, and then ending up in Swiss banks deposited there by the Third World’s despotic and ‘progressive’ leaders?

    Probably enough to save the Euro – and that is a very, very, very large sum of money.

  30. RockyRoad says:

    States imperilled by warming rebel at climate talks

    They’re not “imperrilled by warming’… They’re pissed they weren’t able to employ their pirate status and hold up the West.

    This could all have an interesting backlash–I’ve been supportive of relief efforts to 3rd-world countries, not because of any “climate change” impact the West has caused, but because they deserve to drink clean water, have better medical treatment, and live in relative safety. Since the governments of these countries are participating COP pirates, I’m far less likely to support other programs that might benefit them.

  31. M.A.Vukcevic says:

    Anthony Watts says:
    December 10, 2011 at 9:54 am
    ………..
    Hi Anthony
    Grant Foster states ‘To characterize the solar influence on temperature we use the total solar irradiance (TSI) data from Fr¨ohlich (2006) …. and using monthly sunspot numbers
    as a proxy for solar activity rather than TSI …..’

    No one has accurately quantified solar contribution. This CET component when there is the highest insolation: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-T.htm shows that for 300 years the solar is the only major contribution.
    I challenged him on RC to explain what the temperature would look like if the solar was removed. He failed to respond directly, came back masquerading as Tamino accused me of falsifying the data, which I emailed to dr. Eric Steig, so that line of attack failed, then he resulted to vulgar insults, which were subsequently removed by mod. Jim.
    So I maintain his graph is rubbish, let him come and defend it.

  32. pat says:

    Someone keep Obama away from the checkbook.

  33. Theo Goodwin says:

    Joe Crawford says:
    December 10, 2011 at 9:28 am
    “It’s a rather sad statement about by the human race in general, but, “money, greed , power and control” are the driving factors in most things. The objective is to corral those and steer them into something useful for the general public without doing too much damage from the always present unintended consequences.”

    Without additional clauses that specify individual liberties as inviolable rights of the individual against his government and the sovereignty of nation states you fall right into communism or its precursor the EU.

  34. Louise says:
    December 10, 2011 at 9:41 am

    “So you all think the word ‘invite’ actually means ‘demand’ – wow, I knew there were some differences between American and British English but I’d missed that one.”

    I don’t think that we “all” do think that, but I do think that the word “demand” fairly accurately reflects the language used in the quoted text, namely, “The provision of the amount of funds to be made available annually to developing country Parties,..” [my emphasis, WHS"]

    The word “invites” was used in par. 46 (and only there), but it seems to me that it does not take away from and is to be taken separate from the demand expressed in par. 47 that was quoted in the lead-in comment, above.

    46. Invites developed country Parties to submit information on plans to increase their financial contributions, as fulfilment of their commitments under the Convention, and further invites developing country Parties to submit information on the costs of adaptation and mitigation actions in their countries;

    Par. 47 states a demand.

  35. cirby says:

    Remember, it’s no longer about Global Warming.

    Er – Anthropogenic Global Warming.

    Um – Climate Change?

    Climate Uncertainty!

    No, wait – it’s “Climate Justice”. That’s the current one, since all of the others have sorta failed.

    That’s it. “Climate Justice” (which I first heard during the Cancun meeting last year, when there was record cold outside, and the delegates were pissed off because the “warming” wasn’t warm).

    By this time next year, we’re going to be in “Global Cooling” again.

  36. Theo Goodwin says:

    Curiousgeorge says:
    December 10, 2011 at 9:34 am
    “It’s time to send some ‘family’ guys over to the UN to make them an offer they can’t refuse.”

    That might be necessary. Better our mafia than the UN mafia. However, it is the duty of our federal government to protect its citizens against hoodlums, like the UN, that are out to wreak devastation on our sovereign nation.

  37. pat says:
    December 10, 2011 at 10:14 am

    “Someone keep Obama away from the checkbook.”

    Oh, come on now. There is no possible way his account can be overdrawn. He’s got a lot of checks left to fill out in his checkbook.

  38. Joachim Seifert says:

    Why not make a deal?
    When measurements in a couple of years will prove that CO2 and emissions do not increase present temps, then there was no just obligation to pay and we want our money back …which is fair and everyone will clearly agree to that.
    Therefore, the fund receivers have to pay back all of it as a temporary loan with interest….
    This is not too much to ask for…. who does not agree to this deal?

  39. crosspatch says:

    Yep, just give us money and we will make all the bad molecules go away. Or maybe not, but at least we will try! But only if you hand over the money. If you don’t, your house will be razed by a hurricane, then your land will be dessicated by desert, and finally it will be flooded by the sea …. unless you hand over the money.

  40. crosspatch says:

    “Someone keep Obama away from the checkbook.”

    Funniest thing I heard was: “Please, nobody tell Obama what comes after ‘trillion’”

  41. DirkH says:

    I think the plan is to give 1.6 trillion a year to the cleptocratic regimes of the “developing world” for which they can buy weapons, so that any war between developed world and the cleptocratic dictatorships takes an eternity to unfold and costs as much as WW II. (As part of the war preparations, the receivers will of course maintain that they spend all the money on planting trees.)
    Has the added side benefit of depopulating the planet, and most important of all, investment possibilies.

  42. john says:

    I keep finding links to london going back to Enron, Arthur Anderson, AIG, MF Global. Many of these renewable companies that blew in out of nowhere seem to require London connections. The mystery of derivatives and their usage ranks up there with Dark Matter…. Until now.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/shadow-rehypothecation-infinte-leverage-and-why-breaking-tyrrany-ignorance-only-solution

  43. P. Solar says:

    Philip Foster says:
    December 10, 2011 at 9:23 am
    >>
    I gather that a hoax document has been circulating at Durban… the BBC was taken in (no surprise there then) but admitted as much at lunchtime news today. I suggest we take care about all this.
    >>

    Apparently it is fake. According to the Guardian they got the type face and some “key details” wrong!

    Frankly, I don’t care what frigging type face they use or whether their New World Government kicks in “in 2020″ or “no later” than 2020.

    This document is more important the Mein Kampf.

  44. crosspatch says:

    Dear Durban:

    We don’t have the money. We’re broke. Goldman Sachs and China have all of our cash now. We’ve been cleaned out from bailing out bankers for their losses on mortgages that the “little people” still hold at a loss. Nobody bails us out. We’ve been cleaned out from baling out bankers for their losses on government bonds that the taxpayers of those countries still have to pay off. Nobody bails them out. We’ve been cleaned out by your CO2 regulations that forced our heavy industry to move to China, India, and Brazil so we no longer have steel mills and can’t build power plants.

    We’re broke, Durban. We’re already unemployed and living on the dole. We’re already getting government assistance just to buy food. You want 1.6 trillion dollars to centrally manage the global economy and give all your cronies nice jobs for the rest of their lives? Sorry, Durban, we need that money. It’s all we have left.

    Oh, and Durban, just who the hell do you think you are?

  45. ferd berple says:

    Unreliable*
    ■Skeptical Science – John Cook
    * Due to (1) deletion, extension and amending of user comments, and (2) undated post-publication revisions of article contents after significant user commenting.

    Doesn’t RC also engage in these sorts of tactics? At least on point (1)?

  46. scizzorbill says:

    C.O.P. stands for: collection of pissants.

  47. Mike says:

    Perhaps the UN could be relocated to a place their influence can be most effective. I suggest the Eastern portion of Antarctica.

  48. R. de Haan says:

    Latest extortion attempt from Durban COP17: $1.6 Trillion F A I L E D

    They won’t get it

    Sack Black
    http://thepurplescorpion.blogspot.com/2011/12/black-reveals-some-of-bad-news.html

  49. John M says:

    Louise says:
    December 10, 2011 at 9:41 am

    So you all think the word ‘invite’ actually means ‘demand’ – wow, I knew there were some differences between American and British English but I’d missed that one.

    Louise, as one of the invitees, I can’t help feeling a little like one of these these “honored guests”.

    http://www.pokerpages.com/poker-news/news/surprised-dutch-online-poker-players-are-being-invited-to-pay-taxes–31403.htm

    I note the lead EU rep is Dutch, so maybe it’s Dutch English we ought to be worried about.

  50. Former_Forecaster says:

    $1.6 trillion? Is that all? One IPCC statement says $37 trillion is needed immediately to ‘stop global warming’. I recall EPA saying it would take $170 trillion to lower Earth’s temperature 1 degree C.

    No doubt, they will need to ramp up their demands for money as they figure out how to use it for themselves. They surely won’t be sending any significant amount to countries they claim to be helping.

  51. Roy says:

    If the UN gets the $1.6 million to stop the climate from changing will it also be able to command the tides, or will only Al Gore have that power?

  52. corporate says:

    Wonder whyat THIS mjeans ?

    …… the creation of decent work and quality jobs in accordance with nationality
    defined development priorities and strategies,..

    Not nationally defined, but nationality defined prorities

  53. P. Solar says:

    The suggestion of 1.6tn here is pretty stupid , as stated, that is whole world mil budget not that of developing nations.

    The issues here are serious enough not to need spurious exaggeration.

  54. davidmhoffer says:

    I’m confused as to how this budgeting process is going to work. One requirement of the draft document is that all countries cease any military spending. Then, they demand an amount of money equal to the world’s military spending. By their own process, they have demanded $0.

    Or are they just expecting that no one will listen to their demand for cessation of warfare and spend the money anyway despite the treaty? That must be their expectation since their track record so far of stopping warfare is zero too.

    Starting to be a lot of zeros in this scheme. That would also be the number of countries that are going to sign this piece of insanity and actually implement a single provision in it. ZERO.

  55. Dr Burns says:

    They seem to have forgotten their 50% administration fee.

  56. MikeN says:

    What’s so great about Durban the city that they would put a conference there? The only thing lots of people associate with the city is the racist Jew Hating conference they held there a decade ago.

  57. SionedL says:

    To Louise: Instead of looking up ‘invite’ and ‘demand’ in your Oxford dictionary, check the history of political speak. Words have whatever meaning they want on any given day. If they can convince you to sign onto a plan today with the word ‘invite’, tomorrow that ‘invite’ becomes a ‘demand’ and the day after ‘coercion’, you want corn? wheat? oil?, then you must ‘voluntarily’ ……and the day after that it is a crime against humanity.

  58. George Tetley says:

    And the bad news is that next years feast is going to be held underwater on the once Maldive Islands, to much to ask 30,000 parasites to drown for a just cause!

  59. This document is either too good – or too bad – to be true. Apparently the CAGW people aren’t the only climate bloggers to swallow a hoax:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/dec/10/durban-climate-talks-false-text

    Let’s unruffle our feathers here and get back to reality. ;-)

  60. Gary Pearse says:

    tallbloke says:
    December 10, 2011 at 9:12 am
    “The EU has wasted over 1/4 billion Euro on propping up the european carbon market already. That cash could have rebuilt all coal fired generating plant with filters and reduced co2 emissions 30%.”

    http://bing.search.sympatico.ca/?q=Total%20funding%20for%20climate%20change%20reserach&mkt=en-ca&setLang=en-CA

    JoNova points out that:
    “The US government has provided over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, foreign aid, and tax breaks.”

    Surely the rest of the world has come up with another similar amount- so the total is probably more than $150B + the cost of the world windmill fleet + solar – I’m guessing $750B (the internet is so polluted by green gas that you can’t get a link using sensible search phrases), plus all the other craziness must add up to at least $1trillion. Anybody got numbers on this? Tallbloke, that isn’t your picture at the head of this post is it? With the little fingernail between your teeth?

  61. Louis says:

    Louise says:
    December 10, 2011 at 9:41 am
    “So you all think the word ‘invite’ actually means ‘demand’ – wow, I knew there were some differences between American and British English but I’d missed that one.”

    The “invite” part only applies to submitting “information on plans to increase their financial contributions”. It’s like when the IRS invites me to submit a tax return every year. I can ignore the request to send in my tax forms but that won’t stop them from demanding their money anyway. There isn’t a global IRS, yet, but the elitists in Durban have already drafted plans to create one.

    You may consider your power bill an “invitation” to pay but, where I live, the power gets shut off if I refuse to pay. So, to me, it’s a “demand”. I don’t have the option to ignore the taxes and fees added on to my power bill and pay for just the electricity I use, do you? If Durban gets its way, their extortion money will be added on to your power bill, your grocery bill, your tax bill, and anything else they can get their hands on. In other words, “invite” is newspeak for “demand” in its Durban context.

  62. Doug Proctor says:

    The Global Warming craze is frightening evidence that people’s desire, need, proclivity for magical thinking is greater than their intellectual strength or self-criticism.

    I recently watched a program that described the Russian Glasnost as not just openness, but self-criticism, which was philosophically not possible in Stalinist communism. Only the good parts of society were open to inspection pre-Glasnost. I don’t think that the refusal on philosophical ground to open up the sores of the state are just a Communist problem: the MSM, government and people of capitalist countries are just as self-blind to the problems their way of living causes. As are the hyper-religious and the atheist. It is more the way of people than the way of a people.

    The Durban demand for trillions of dollars – or billions or lots of millions, it doesn’t matter – is all about preservation of self-respect. Face-saving. Going out strong, never admitting error or foolishness. In fact, the greater the demand, the more likely the demand is to be refused. Then something more moderate, but in compromise against your alleged core beliefs, might be successful. And proposed by the next generation.

    Put Keystone XL on top of a regional acquifer? Hell, no, never, over our dead bodies. Oh, shift it to the east, over someone else’s land without our acquifer on it? Sure, I don’t have a dog in this fight, I’m pleased and I’m going home. Not that I object to burning the jet fuel that takes me around the world, I was just making a point about what, if I were running the world, I’d like to see.

    Durban, thank the Lord, is excessive to the ridiculous. So it will fail. But all those whose hearts are on their sleeves will be able to preserve their self-image. And find something else to plump up their chest about. And so it will go – as long as the Watts and the Moranos and the Inhofes are allowed to say their piece, that is.

    What is really distressing, though, is the repetition of magical thinking of educated, experienced, cultured “leaders” everywhere. We are progressing technologically. We understand the physics better than ever before, but we still behave as the European and Aztecs of one thousand years ago, looking for AND FINDING witches and angry gods to blame for troubles in our lives. Sacrifice, sacrifice, sacrifice: a marginalized element one time, an underclass of believers another time, a corporate villain the next. All the same song, just the style changes.

    In science fiction movies, humans are often said to be unready to enter the “civilized” universe. We are too violent. AGW shows that it isn’t violence that is at the heart of the problem, it is a way of magical thinking that says “strike here, and all the problems go away”. Wars, AGW, Ponzi schemes on Wall Street – all ways of being that says the Other exists, the Other, when defeated, will make our lives perfect. Magical thinking when slow but steady work will actually do the trick.

    Durban, Durban, Durban. How do they sleep at night? Very well, indeed, for they are Good People, which is the only point worth considering, after all.

  63. Bloke down at the pub says:

    Note that that is the amount spent by developed countries on defence, not the $1.6 trillion spent worldwide. Either way that’s a lot to spend on parties even for the UN.

    Good point.
    SIPRI’s military expenditure database is available to download in a spread sheet and lists expenditures by country.
    Please do us the service and break out developing vs developed country expenditures.

    Some other clues from Military Expenditures and Development J. Paul Dunne
    Income group (by 2003 gross national income per capita)
    Low $29.5
    Lower middle $122
    Upper middle $51
    High $799
    —————————
    Reducing military spending and helping the poor are still honorable goals. Just do it without establishing a global coercive government and universal taxation without representation.

    See Fact Sheet: Military Spending vs. Millennium Development Goals

    The estimated cost of compliance with all eight United Nations Millennium Development Goals – eradicating hunger, universal primary education, child mortality reduction, disease prevention, environmental sustainability, and global development – are all eclipsed by yearly military spending figures.
    In fact, all eight MDGs combined cost less than a fifth of yearly military spending.

    Goal 1: Eradicate extreme hunger and poverty $102 billion
    Goal 7: Ensure Environmental Sustainability $155.6 billion
    Goal 8: Develop Global Partnership fro Development $40 billion
    Annual cost estimation of all MDGs = $329 billion.
    Global Military Spending in 2009 – $1.53 trillion

  64. RS says:

    You do the hokey pokey and that’s what it’s all about.

    Money taken from the “wrong” people, and given to the “right” people with most of it sticking to the elite fingers in the middle.

  65. 1DandyTroll says:

    So, essentially, that means spending a symbolical sum on technology and forest so that .7*1.6 Trillion can be spent on the most important people-the ones sitting around saying what could and should be done year in and year out, without actually anything being done.

    The politicized class need your money to live in wealth too, so don’t deny them your kindness come taxation time. :p

  66. JPeden says:

    Louise says:
    December 10, 2011 at 9:41 am

    “So you all think the word ‘invite’ actually means ‘demand’ – wow….”

    47. The provision of the amount of funds to be made available annually to developing country Parties, which shall be equivalent to the budget that developed countries spend on defence, security, and warfare.

    Now that’s a real “wow”, dearie.

    But I suppose you also think the authors of Fast and Furious, Sheriff Eric “Hit Man” Holder, and Prince John Barack and his Commie Hoods are really Robinhood and his Merry Men battling to oppose confiscatory taxation? And that the Drug Cartels will send only their real dirty “laundry” back for La Raza and such to dry clean?

    Geez, Louise, it’s no doubt only going to be a matter of time before you “Progressives” will be praising these total fakes as “John Wayne Cowboys”.

  67. Louise: Re: “So you all think the word ‘invite’ actually means ‘demand’”
    Please evaluate the grammar of para 47 “to be made available” and “shall be”

    funds to be made available annually to developing country Parties, which shall be equivalent to the budget that developed countries spend on defence, security, and warfare.

    e.g. Merriam-Webster definition of shall includes:

    b —used in laws, regulations, or directives to express what is mandatory – “it shall be unlawful to carry firearms”

  68. RichieP says:

    Philip Foster says:
    December 10, 2011 at 9:23 am

    ‘I gather that a hoax document has been circulating at Durban’
    Pretty much every document circulating at Durban is a hoax, as is the event itself.

  69. Downdraft says:

    To:Bloke down the pub says:
    December 10, 2011 at 10:03 am

    Please read it again. It is the amount spent by Developed Countries.
    Climate control is not the issue: Equal poverty for all the the goal.

  70. davidmhoffer says:

    David L. Hagen;
    Annual cost estimation of all MDGs = $329 billion.
    Global Military Spending in 2009 – $1.53 trillion>>>

    Here’s the problem with that analysis. You are assuming that spending the $329 Billion would be effective. History shows that it will not. Billions upon billions have been poured into the poor nations of the earth in the form of aid and support of all sorts, and they remain poor nations, struggling in squalor. They will continue to do so until the dictatorships, theocracies, monarchies and totaly corrupt governments are gone. Until then, every penny of aid sent to those poor nations does nothing but prop up the regimes that are responsible for their people’s misery, and prolongs the agony of the people who suffer under them.

  71. DirkH says:

    Re mil. spending of developed vs developing world, here’s a good pie chart for 2008.
    http://topforeignstocks.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/military-country-distribution-2008.png

    EU+USA = 68% of total. Rest is difficult to break up, but you get the picture. I guess total of developed world is about 75% of the total.

  72. Former_Forecaster says:

    “corporate says:
    December 10, 2011 at 10:41 am
    Wonder whyat THIS mjeans ?

    …… the creation of decent work and quality jobs in accordance with nationality
    defined development priorities and strategies,..

    Not nationally defined, but nationality defined prorities”

    Isn’t that interesting. I think most people can speculate what is really meant.

  73. Camburn says:

    Seems the USA has given enough, even without ratifying a treaty.

    http://www.state.gov/e/oes/rls/remarks/2011/178458.htm

    Talk about a waste of investment. What have we gotten for 90 BILLION and in the past two years….5.1 BILLION. No wonder the USA is going down the rat hole fast.

  74. Josualdo says:

    tallbloke says: December 10, 2011 at 9:12 am: The EU has wasted over 1/4 billion Euro on propping up the european carbon market already. That cash could have rebuilt all coal fired generating plant with filters and reduced co2 emissions 30%.

    Half that would have paid all of Portugal’s debt, IMF loans almost all included.

  75. RayG says:

    One of the problems that the U.N. has is that it is too far removed from the majority of the countries that make up its membership. I propose that the industrialized countries remedy that by “inviting” the developed nations to contribute to a fund to move the U.N headquarters and the headquarters of those U.N. organizations that are in Switzerland and Paris to Mogadishu. I, for one, would encourage president Obama and Senate Majority leader Reid to direct that 50% of the U.S’s U.N. contribution be restricted to this fund.

  76. Gary Pearse says:

    Gee a year ago, they would have been happy with holding the temp rise to 2 C. With the climagegate 1 and 2, the dropping sea levels instead of accelerating ones, with Lower Troposphere cooling and no statistical warming since 1995….now they are really teed off. You-all wouldn’t agree to 2C so now we are going to make it 1C allowable and you are being fined 1.6T a year… so there! Hansen’s science now says that 1C is too high (you should have listened and aquiesced last year) and we will be facing many metres sea level rise (H wants to submerge that stubborn Hudson R. parkway under half a dozen metres of water by 2050. Gee, I guess we better sign up before they come out with the big guns.

  77. Dave says:

    Green madness strikes again.
    How destroy one of the most powerful economic engines in Canada. Spend $ Billions on useless Wind and Solar, don’t plan on how to hook them up to the grid. Drive up the cost of electricity to the point that Industry, businesses and the public can’t afford it. The net result is unemployment and uncompetitiveness on top of a world financial melt down. Thank god for the oil, gas and raw resource sectors or Canada would be bankrupt thanks mainly to the Green socialist policy’s of Ontario and Quebec.

    Ontario. Canada – Auditor General blasts Green Energy cost
    Ontario Auditor General blasts McGuinty’s Liberal Governments Green Energy Act
    WINDSOR, Ont. — The province’s Auditor General has heavily criticized the McGuinty government’s Green Energy Act, saying government subsidies will cost consumers $220 million on their hydro bills and 75 per cent of the jobs created will be short term.

    “No comprehensive evaluation was done on the impact of the billion-dollar commitment to renewable energy on such things as future electricity prices, net job creation or losses across the province, and greenhouse gas emissions,” auditor general Jim McCarter in his report released Monday at Queen’s Park.

    Read more:
    http://www.windsorstar.com/business/Ontario+Auditor+General+blasts+McGuinty+Green+Energy/5813967/story.html#ixzz1gA6X1UgL

  78. Andrew30 says:

    As the Durban talks near an end and delegates scramble to reach some agreement, here’s a list of some of the key things under negotiation:

    1. Adaptation Fund (Money)
    2. Clean Development Mechanism (Money)
    3. Green Climate Fund (Money)
    4. MRV: Measure, report and verify (Money)
    5. MRV for developing nations (Money)
    6. Technology Transfer (Money)
    7. REDD (Money)

    When Europeans arrived in America they had shovels, axes, seeds, plows, some draft animals and a willingness to work hard for what they wanted.

    In less than 300 years their descendants (the Americans) had landed a man on the Moon, created the Internet and improved their standard of living through hard work and by using the abundant natural resources, including inexpensive energy.

    The countries demanding money have shovels, axes, seeds, plows, some draft animals and …. the ability to ask for a free ride.

    The people in North America had to work hard for More than 200 years to get to where they are today, and some people in some countries just want it all right away without the long hard work, and they think they can Guilt us in to giving it to them. Good luck with that.

  79. higley7 says:

    Cheapest cure for global warming would be to disband the IPCC and spend $10 million, one time, in an ad campaign explaining that the IPCC never was scientific and that AGW was a scam.

    As global warming has already taken care of itself by cooling naturally, we’re done.

    I love the idea that the money should equal all money spent in security, military, and warfare. You see they think their edict that everybody cease all forms of aggression, now, will free up all of those monies.

    Where do the UN clowns live? Same planet? Planet Zanax?

  80. Marian says:

    I like the bit where it says “A low carbon society.” That equates to ‘death and non-developement’ Back to the caves!

  81. chuck nolan says:

    Dr Burns says:
    December 10, 2011 at 10:49 am
    They seem to have forgotten their 50% administration fee.
    ———————————
    Kick in another 30% to cover attorney fees.

  82. DirkH says:

    Josualdo says:
    December 10, 2011 at 11:39 am
    “tallbloke says: December 10, 2011 at 9:12 am: The EU has wasted over 1/4 billion Euro on propping up the european carbon market already. That cash could have rebuilt all coal fired generating plant with filters and reduced co2 emissions 30%.

    Half that would have paid all of Portugal’s debt, IMF loans almost all included.”

    Josualdo, Portugal had an extremely green energy policy (as encouraged by Brussels/Berlin)… so part of the 1/4 bn EUR wasted ARE Portoguese debt now!

  83. bladeshearer says:

    I tried to post a link more than an hour ago to this Guardian article: “Durban climate change talks: false text diverts race to reach deal.” Rather than posting the link – http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/dec/10/durban-climate-talks-false-text – WUWT apparently prefers to perpetuate the hoax.

    [REPLY: Try looking a little harder. Your first post got through just fine. Gonna apologize now? -REP]

  84. Theo Goodwin says:

    Why can’t the Maldives get the money they need the same way we do, borrow it from China?

  85. CynicalScientist says:

    The interesting thing about Durban is who didn’t go. World leaders stayed away in droves and sent minor functionaries instead. The conference was dominated by … impractical people … and little effort seems to have been made to reign them in. The result appears to be a document so far off the planet that the world leaders (who didn’t go remember) will have absolutely no trouble dissociating themselves from it and rejecting it. One might almost think it was deliberate.

  86. RockyRoad says:

    crosspatch says:
    December 10, 2011 at 10:25 am

    “Someone keep Obama away from the checkbook.”

    Funniest thing I heard was: “Please, nobody tell Obama what comes after ‘trillion’”

    It would be “$Brazillion”; that’s why he thinks South America has so much money.

  87. Olen says:

    It is the biggest rip-off attempt in history You have to ask what the military spending of a sovereign nation has to do with their claim to someone else’s money and why is anything owed for nothing? Perhaps the attempt is to coerce the developed countries into becoming defenseless to escape the economy crushing fine they hope to impose.

    The most-strange part of the money grab is the crumbling scientific theory and predictions being used to justify the plan of these UN grifters.

  88. crosspatch says:

    I’ve been following the tweets. We are at a pretty dangerous stage. The delegates are so tired and so ready to get out of town that they will likely sign anything. That means that whatever goes in that final document will not likely be read carefully.

    Look for something being slipped into that document that hasn’t been discussed.

  89. bladeshearer
    I extracted from and linked to the documented posted by the UNFCC at:
    http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/awglca14/eng/crp39.pdf
    I also warned about the fake document.
    If you can find a posted copy of the fake, please link to it and highlight the differences.

  90. joated says:

    There’s a two word response for this, but the inappropriate language would get me banned.

  91. John-X says:

    Really, only $1,600,000,000,000.00 ?

    I have that much in my Global Warming BS Swear Jar, help yourself

  92. Sparks says:

    Number 1: Dr Evil do you expect them to pay that sort of money?
    Dr. Evil: No Number 1, I expect them to Die!! Mwaahahahaha!

  93. cui bono says:

    $1.6 trillion? We could settle the entire Solar System for a tenth of that. Just saying…

  94. Louis says:

    Downdraft says:
    Climate control is not the issue: Equal poverty for all the the goal.

    Yes, except it will be equal poverty for all but the elite with sticky fingers who get to redistribute the cash. They expect to live in luxury in the farmhouse while everyone else is freezing and starving out in the barn. In fact, many of them are hoping that most of us starve to death so they can inherit the earth as their own private green preserve. Let’s not forget who these people really are:

    “If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
    — Prince Phillip, World Wildlife Fund

    “Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.”
    — Dave Forman (founder of Earth First!)

  95. Schaeffer K says:

    What financial institutions are behind this scheme?

  96. crosspatch says:

    “What financial institutions are behind this scheme?”

    The UN *IS* a financial scheme!

  97. Josualdo says:

    DirkH says: December 10, 2011 at 12:12 pm:
    Josualdo says: December 10, 2011 at 11:39 am:
    “tallbloke says: December 10, 2011 at 9:12 am: The EU has wasted over 1/4 billion Euro on propping up the european carbon market already. That cash could have rebuilt all coal fired generating plant with filters and reduced co2 emissions 30%.

    Half that would have paid all of Portugal’s debt, IMF loans almost all included.”

    Josualdo, Portugal had an extremely green energy policy (as encouraged by Brussels/Berlin)… so part of the 1/4 bn EUR wasted ARE Portoguese debt now!

    I’m regrettably pretty much aware of that… Machiavellian, isn’t it? And now we’ll have to keep subsidizing the renewables energy production from our personal pockets — the new Economy Minister clearly meant to stop the subsidies (he wrote about that more than once as a “must be”), but it seems the contracts are absolutely cast in steel, like so many other ruinous ones (public-private initiatives for instance). In a single year, we were done for the next 30.

  98. Curiousgeorge says:

    @ Louis says:
    December 10, 2011 at 12:47 pm

    “If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
    — Prince Phillip, World Wildlife Fund

    “Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.”
    — Dave Forman (founder of Earth First!)
    ============================================================

    Both of those individuals are genocidal maniacs. But they are also cowards, or they would act on their words.

  99. Louis says:

    Article 10:
    “Affirms that the long-term global goal for emission reductions shall be consistent
    with science, in particular those of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report and more recent
    scientific information, and agreed on the basis of the principles of the Convention…”

    So the global goal for emission reductions shall be consistent with science, as long as science is in complete agreement with the Church of Gaia and her self-appointed high priests. Am I reading that right?

  100. wermet says:

    crosspatch says on December 10, 2011 at 10:24 am

    Yep, just give us money and we will make all the bad molecules go away. Or maybe not, but at least we will try! But only if you hand over the money. If you don’t, your house will be razed by a hurricane, then your land will be dessicated by desert, and finally it will be flooded by the sea …. unless you hand over the money.

    I would much rather take my chances against Mother Nature than the “progressives” pushing this UN sponsored Climate Justice nonsense. The “people-who-try-to-help-everyone”, always seem to be able to lower my (and others) take-home pay through increased taxes, fees, tariffs and mandatory cost increases.

    At least with Mother Nature, I am given a fighting chance to come out unscathed. I have survived all the hurricanes, earthquakes, wild fires, tornadoes, thunderstorms, blizzards, and floods that Nature has thrown at me without undue stress.

    BTW, Given my track record regarding being present during disasters, you might not want to stand too close to me, :)

  101. wayne says:

    “You need to save us, the islands can’t sink. We have a right to live, you can’t decide our destiny. We will have to be saved,” Maldives climate negotiator Mohamed Aslam said.
    -
    Get real Maldives! If anything you need dirt & sand, not dollars!
    Buy your own cranes from those hundreds of millions of tourist dollars.
    Dig. The ocean floors are huge and will recover.

  102. William says:

    Fortunately Western Countries all have balanced budgets and can hence throw trillions of dollars away to corrupt third world governments for boondoggle projects.

    It is time to stop the insanity. We are not brain dead sheep.

  103. bladeshearer says:

    [REPLY: Try looking a little harder. Your first post got through just fine. Gonna apologize now? -REP]

    Oops – sorry, I missed that. So, apparently, did everyone else, as the dudgeon here continues to rise despite the likelihood that the subject document is a hoax.

    [REPLY: What you also missed is that the document under discussion came from the UN's own website here. -REP]

  104. Henry Galt says:

    As my families’ fuel costs have risen we have had to drop our green/caring credentials.

    First it was the recycled stuff such as toilet paper and kitchen towels – a 15% saving. Then the environmentally friendly stuff such as shampoo, washing up liquid and washing powder – a 12% saving. Then it was the organic food – milk, meat, bread – a 20% saving. Right now it is the charities – the only one left is the RNLI (after 10 years in marine salvage I will leave that until last) that feel our pain.

    We are not alone.

    These unspeakable morons have absolutely no idea the environmental, societal and individual damage they have caused, to date, with their idiocy. Or they do, in which case we must find a way to repay them.

    I was already extremely angry when it was distant (to me) ills, such as over-fishing, clean water and deforestation, that could have been cured with the money we wasted on these scumbags’ paranoid fantasies. Now it is personal I am having trouble finding the words. My children wish you party-goers in Durban a Happy Christmas. Ignorant, Fraudulent Assholes.

  105. M.A.Vukcevic says:

    Hey Anthony, Tamino is defending your blog from the barks of his lapdogs.
    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/12/10/oh-pleeze/#comment-57544

  106. WillieB says:

    As other commenters have mentioned, the UN’s ultimate goal is to establish a one world government. To do that they need a reliable source of funding. Relying on member states to pay dues is not always reliable, however taxation is. And, with the ability to tax comes the ability to control.

    There is an area that the UN seeks to control and tax that is far more ominous than CO2 (particularly to bloggers such as Anthony and others). The UN wants to take over control of the internet! This isn’t some pie-in-the-sky left-wing looney wish. This comes from the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC). In addition to repressive regimes such as China and Russia, numerous non-governmental organizations and international foundations (such as George Soros’ Open Society Institute) are also involved in the effort to change Internet policy. The date set for renegotiating the current treaty (signed in 1988) is December 2012.

    To quote FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell “While we have been focused on other important matters here in the U.S., the effort to radically reverse the long-standing international consensus to keep governments from regulating core functions of the Internet’s ecosystem has been gaining momentum. The reach, scope and seriousness of this effort are nothing short of massive”.

    I urge everyone to get up to speed on this issue as it will affect everyone in every country.
    http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/09/fcc-commissioner-fears-international-internet-takeover/

  107. Jace says:

    They just jumped the shark, shark with frikkin lasers!

  108. corporate says:

    Former_Forecaster ,

    “Nationality defined” might mean that the Alberta oil sands will be OK to exploit – so long as Canada brings in the workers from The Maldives ! ( they’ll have to be migrants – of course. Naturally. Mother Earth provides)

  109. Perhaps the UN could be relocated to a place their influence can be most effective. I suggest the Eastern portion of Antarctica………. I live fairly close to Antarctia so that won’t work for me … I suggest El Heiro as more suitable…. far far more suitable for the new UN headquaters. Who actually owns that building in NY? could they be pursuaded to cancel the lease PLEASE

  110. Jer0me says:

    So what will happen to the employment level when the army, navy and air force of all developed countries are made redundant? Then you have all the associated industries that supply the vast ‘war machine’ being made redundant. Then you have the knock-on effect in the already crippled economy, whereby these business collapses cause further redundancies and collapses.

    Eventually the ‘developed’ world loses all its ‘development’ and economies and governments collapse. The UN wins, and then becomes the world leading organisation lording over … what? A bunch of mud huts?

    And seriously, the dimwits who drafted this cannot think it through that far? They obviously have no concept of economics. I don’t, really, but that was my obvious first train of thought.

  111. crosspatch says:

    What is the combined annual budget of all the NGOs present in Durban and all of their associated NGOs?

    THAT is the reason we are having economic problems. That amount to billions of dollars being spent that produces NOTHING. How much did Spain and Portugal spend on “green” energy? What if they had all of that money back to do something actually productive … such as maybe leaving it in the pockets of their taxpayers?

  112. King of Cool says:

    Breaking News – an updated history on the LAST chance to save the world:

    http://asiancorrespondent.com/71700/an-updated-history-of-last-chances-to-save-the-world/

    Love it. Guess next time it will be the VERY LAST chance to save the world.

  113. john dyson says:

    MikeN
    I lived in Durban for 16 years – A really great place!
    Please don’t let your ignorance dominate!
    But if I still lived there, I guess I would be as disgusted as you are.

  114. crosspatch says:

    So what will happen to the employment level when the army, navy and air force of all developed countries are made redundant?

    I am sure they will take care of that problem, too, if we just hand them enough money.

  115. Marian says:

    “crosspatch says:
    December 10, 2011 at 12:58 pm
    “What financial institutions are behind this scheme?”

    The UN *IS* a financial scheme!”

    What’s the bet a large percentage of 1.6 Trillion $$$ will be the new budget for the ‘Enforcers’. The UN Global ECO-Green Police?

    Cheap Trick’s song ‘Dream Police’ will have to be slightly re written and retitled the “Green Police”. With all the propaganda and crap from the UN.

    The Green police, they live inside of my head.
    The Green police, they come to me in my bed.
    The Green police, they’re coming to arrest me, oh no.

  116. Curiousgeorge says:

    Anjali Appadurai, a student at the College of the Atlantic in Bar Harbor, Maine, addressed the conference on behalf of youth delegates. “ANJALI APPADURAI: I speak for more than half the world’s population. ” http://www.democracynow.org/2011/12/9/get_it_done_urging_climate_justice

    Really? An obscure student from an obscure college in an obscure state (currently frozen solid, btw) speaks for 3.5 billion people? What mind boggling arrogance!

  117. Smokey says:

    Step aside, folks, I’m buying.☺

    • • • • •

    “One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”
    ~ Ottmar Edenhofer, Co-Chair, UN/IPCC WG-3

  118. Bill Illis says:

    Are we supposed to believe the numbers on climate change that these people put forward.

    They can’t even figure out their text puts a $1.6 trillion tax on developing countries. About as ridiculous as it can get.

    But not quite …

    Cause 78 and 79 establish “An International Climate Court of Justice”. We though the Penn State professor was just grandstanding. Nope.

  119. AdderW says:

    Curiousgeorge says:
    December 10, 2011 at 3:04 pm

    Anjali Appadurai, a student at the College of the Atlantic in Bar Harbor, Maine, addressed the conference on behalf of youth delegates. “ANJALI APPADURAI: I speak for more than half the world’s population. ” http://www.democracynow.org/2011/12/9/get_it_done_urging_climate_justice

    Really? An obscure student from an obscure college in an obscure state (currently frozen solid, btw) speaks for 3.5 billion people? What mind boggling arrogance!

    Unless someone puts their feet down really hard and really soon, we will have ’1984′ on our hands and children with green uniforms …

  120. Spartacus says:

    Guys can’t you get it? That’s the price of a giant worldwide air conditioning system!!!

  121. Alex the skeptic says:

    The excuse for wanting our money, trillions of it, is because, supposedly, we, the people of the industrialised countries, are causing oceans to rise, temperatures to soar, amd therefore, those tiny little countries, and some big ones too, will suffer because of our industrious character, inventive genius and general talents that make us capable of raising our standard of living in such a way as to double our expected life span from 40 years to 80 years, not dying of the cold and common colds and simple infections, being well nourished, clothed and having machines doing the otherwise back-breaking manual work for us that my grand father and his ancestors had to do for a living with their bare hands. Now, all this technology has been transferred to these good-for-nothing peoples of these back-ward countries FOR FREE, so that they would be able to drive SUV’s, live to a venerable old age of 85 years, eat meat and driink beer, and they want to get their hands in my pocket so that they would be able to have all this WITHOUT EVER DOING ANYTHING TO EARN IT. Just like the sociailists want to partake of my money in the form of a ‘dole’ and other excuses, now, the people of Vanuatu, voodooland and Venezuela (even if the latter is drowning in black gold) want trillions of dollars from those people who saved them from abject poverty and death by famine/plagues/tyranny.
    What the industrialised countires (the descriptor ‘Industrious Countries’ would be a truer one) should do is ask these good-for-nothings to pay us for everything we have given them for freethese last 200 years. And I bl**dy mean it.

  122. William says:

    In reply to Vukcevic

    M.A.Vukcevic says:
    December 10, 2011 at 1:35 pm

    Hey Anthony, Tamino is defending your blog from the barks of his lapdogs.
    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/12/10/oh-pleeze/#comment-57544

    I am sure Tamino will censor my comment, so here it is.

    The sun does not modulate planetary temperature based on the number of sunspots. One needs to understand the mechanisms (plural not singular) by which the sun affects planetary temperature and how the sun is changing to understand why planetary temperature increased in the 20th century and how planetary temperature will change in the future. (The sun was in its highest activity level in roughly 10,000 years during the last portion of the 20th century.)

    Roughly 70% of the 20th century warming was due to solar wind bursts that occurred late in the solar cycle. The solar wind bursts create a space charge differential in the ionosphere which removes cloud forming ions by a mechanism that is called electroscavenging.

    The delay in planetary cooling is due to the short period solar cycles followed by a long solar cycle. This is an interesting phenomena (why there is correlation in solar cycle length and planetary temperature – i.e. There is a physical reason for the correlation.) that is due to a fundamental solar parameter which was to this point not been measured although there is host of different unexplained anomalies that are caused by this parameter.

    The planet will now cool and sea level will drop (the sea level drop will be significantly greater than the thermal contraction due to cooling and due to the increase in the ice sheets and the mountain glaciers.) (There is in the paleo record weird unexplained rapid cyclic sea level changes which correlate with the paleo climatic temperature changes, which also correlate to unexplained geomagnetic field inclination and intensity changes.)

    When the planet cools we can all yell hurray for our side as we were correct and then start the process of looking for a solution to global cooling.

  123. Alex the skeptic says:

    According to Monckton, those trillions of dollars would not go direct to the ‘suffering’ nations, but straight to the UN coffers for them to distribute. But distribute among whom? How much of that money would really reach the drowning vanuatans. Of course, since the vanuatans will not actually drown, they will not get any of those trillions. There lies the scam.

  124. davidmhoffer says:

    Alex the Skeptic;
    (the descriptor ‘Industrious Countries’ would be a truer one>>>

    True! If the 3rd world were not run by a collection of corrupt dictatorships, monarchies, and theocracies determined to cling to power at any cost, they wouldn’t BE the 3rd world, and there would be nobody to transfer the wealth to!

  125. Sean Peake says:

    Man, you gotta read the twitter feed from #cop17 Marxists gone nuts.

  126. PeterT says:

    Batman-: Could it be……………………………………..
    Robin-: What Batman?
    Batman-: Could it be that Whatsupwith that has fallen for a fake document again, a document put out by……………………..by The Joker.
    Robin-: Holy Jovial Jesters Batman, you mean the Funny Fiend is in Durban writing fake documents to entrap the gullible, Batman?
    Batman-: That’s exactly what I mean Boy Wonder, there’s no time to lose, quick Robin, slide down this pole.

  127. Jimmy Haigh says:

    1,600,000,000,000

    The average number of air molecules you have to count before you find the first CO2.

  128. u.k.(us) says:

    Wanna see $100 dollar bills stacked up ?

    http://www.pagetutor.com/trillion/calculations.html

    It is obvious, our elected officials have no concept of a “Trillion”.

  129. tokyoboy says:

    Jimmy Haigh says: December 10, 2011 at 4:22 pm
    “1,600,000,000,000 … The average number of air molecules you have to count before you find the first CO2.”

    You have made a slight mistake.
    390 ppm equals to one CO2 molecule among 2,564 air molecules.

  130. Bruce Cobb says:

    There appear to be two different versions:
    http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/awglca14/eng/crp39.pdf
    http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/awglca14/eng/l04.pdf
    The first is the one linked to above, the second is what is now on the UNFCC website http://unfccc.int/meetings/durban_nov_2011/meeting/6245.php where it says “The AWG-LCA text is now available here.”
    I believe the 2nd, newer version has been watered down considerably, which has angered many. This appears to be somewhat of a repeat of the Copenhagen performance, with some parties already having left, and those remaining desperately trying to strike some sort of deal, as time runs out.

  131. John M says:

    Dumb-: Could it be PeterT has not bothered to notice that the document comes straight from the UN web site?
    Dumber-: You know, just when I think no one can get any dumber…you go and totally redeem yourself by pointing out the obvious!

  132. pat says:

    the comments must be embarrassing for Black and the Beeb:

    11 Dec: BBC: Richard Black: UN climate talks near chaotic end
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16124670

  133. LazyTeenager says:

    But you guys keep on telling me we already spends trillions on AGW.

    But now it turns out 1.6 trillion is the total military expenditure of the entire developed world.

    Any body seen the establishment of an Eco corps equivalent in size to the usa military, which seems to have a major military base in every major town. Or are you hiding it in area 51?

    Nope no sign of them. Which must mean that every one of you who pulls trillions of AGW out of thin air is not particularly skeptical.

  134. Bob Diaz says:

    I’ll bet the $1.6 Trillion is JUST the down payment; greed knows no limit!

  135. Ilkka Mononen says:

    FOIA File structure seen as DOS file structure.
    SUB Directory REDACTED.

    CD/ redacted
    http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?search=REDACTED

    DIR

    Thu, 9 Oct 2008 6:56:17 am
    0058.txt- Ralf
    0058.txt-
    0058.txt:[[[redacted: reference]]]
    0058.txt-
    0058.txt- Finally, might I ask that you note and then erase this email. I have found that recent

    OPEN 0058.txt-
    http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=0058.txt&search=REDACTED

    date: Thu Oct 9 17:56:17 2008
    from: Keith Briffa
    subject: Re: Tom Giverin – IN STRICT CONFIDENCE
    to: “Toumi, Ralf”
    Ralf
    [[[redacted: reference]]]
    Finally, might I ask that you note and then erase this email. I have found that recent
    enquiries under the Freedom of Information Act, or Data Protection Act, can become
    considerable time sinks , or the basis of some inconvenient subsequent distractions.
    with best wishes
    Keith
    At 12:38 09/10/2008, you wrote:

    Dear Keith,
    Tom has applied to do a PhD with me (probably mesoscale modelling). Could you please
    give me a reference for him. In particular I would be interested to know if you would
    take him in your group (and why you think he is still available; which is good for
    me…, but I always worry at this time of year).
    Best wishes,
    Ralf

    Professor Ralf Toumi
    Department of Physics
    Imperial College
    London SW7 2AZ
    UK

    Rm. H713 (Huxley Building)
    Telephone: + 44 (0) ???
    Fax: + 44 (0) ???
    email: [1]???@imperial.ac.uk
    Web: [2]http://www.sp.ph.ic.ac.uk/~rtoumi/


    Professor Keith Briffa,
    Climatic Research Unit
    University of East Anglia
    Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.

    Phone: +4 ???-1603-593909
    Fax: +4 ???-1603-507784
    [3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/

    Open – it is also a filename, + = space key seen on FOIA Grepper.
    DIR
    http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?search=+–

    “### CANNOT PARSE DATE ###
    0876437553.txt-Sounds like you guys have been busy doing good things for the cause.
    0876437553.txt-
    0876437553.txt:I would like to weigh in on two important questions –
    0876437553.txt-“

    0876437553.txt:I would like to weigh in on two important questions –
    0876437553 = UNIX time stamp
    Open 0876437553.txt
    “From: Joseph Alcamo
    To: ???@uea.ac.uk, ???@rivm.nl
    Subject: Timing, Distribution of the Statement
    Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 18:52:33 0100
    Reply-to: ???@usf.uni-kassel.de

    Mike, Rob,

    Sounds like you guys have been busy doing good things for the cause.

    I would like to weigh in on two important questions –

    Distribution for Endorsements –
    I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution as
    possible for endorsements. I think the only thing that counts is
    numbers. The media is going to say “1000 scientists signed” or “1500
    signed”. No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000
    without. They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a
    different story.

    Conclusion — Forget the screening, forget asking
    them about their last publication (most will ignore you.) Get those
    names!

    Timing — I feel strongly that the week of 24 November is too late.
    1. We wanted to announce the Statement in the period when there was
    a sag in related news, but in the week before Kyoto we should expect
    that we will have to crowd out many other articles about climate.
    2. If the Statement comes out just a few days before Kyoto I am
    afraid that the delegates who we want to influence will not have any
    time to pay attention to it. We should give them a few weeks to hear
    about it.
    3. If Greenpeace is having an event the week before, we should have
    it a week before them so that they and other NGOs can further spread
    the word about the Statement. On the other hand, it wouldn’t be so
    bad to release the Statement in the same week, but on a
    diffeent day. The media might enjoy hearing the message from two
    very different directions.

    Conclusion — I suggest the week of 10 November, or the week of 17
    November at the latest.

    Mike — I have no organized email list that could begin to compete
    with the list you can get from the Dutch. But I am still
    willing to send you what I have, if you wish.

    Best wishes,

    Joe Alcamo

    —————————————————-
    Prof. Dr. Joseph Alcamo, Director
    Center for Environmental Systems Research
    University of Kassel
    Kurt Wolters Strasse 3
    D-34109 Kassel
    Germany”

    There is still filename —————————————————-

    DIR
    http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?search=+—————————————————-

    Thu, 11 Jul 1996 1:07:13 pm
    0837094033.txt-> NR4 7TJ
    0837094033.txt-> UK
    0837094033.txt:> —————————————————————————-
    0837094033.txt->
    0837094033.txt->

    Open
    0837094033.txt:> —————————————————————————-
    “From: Alan Robock
    To: Phil Jones
    Subject: Re: your mail
    Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 10:07:13 -0400 (EDT)

    Dear Phil,

    It looks like you have found Baitoushan. Vol. 2 lists Kuwae as VEI 6 in
    1452 +/- 10 AD. How accurate are your dates? By the way, Chris Newhall
    thinks 1600 is the Parker volcano on Mindanao in the Philippines. He
    hasn’t published that so far, as I know.

    Could you please define “utter prat” for me? Sometimes I think we speak
    the same language, and sometimes I’m not so sure.

    I’m doing fine. We have a new building with nice new offices. I’m going
    to Australia next week with Sherri and Danny, and after the meeting, will
    visit Cairns, Adelaide, and New Zealand. I’m looking forward to skiing
    on a volcano, if it stops erupting.

    Alan

    Prof. Alan Robock Phone: (301)???
    Department of Meteorology Fax: (301)???
    University of Maryland Email: ???@atmos.umd.edu
    College Park, MD 20742 http://www.meto.umd.edu/~alan

    On Thu, 11 Jul 1996, Phil Jones wrote:

    > Alan,
    > Thanks for the quick response. We’ll expect something from Melissa
    > in the next few weeks. I also hope our copy of the 2cnd edition arrives
    > soon. In our maximum latewood density reconstruction from the polar Urals
    > to AD 914, the most anomalous summer is AD 1032. A lot of other volcano
    > years are there with summers of -3 to -4 sigma such as 1816,1601,1783 and
    > 1453 (I think this later one is Kuwae that is being found in the Ice Cores
    > in the Antarctic. However 1032 is 6 sigma and it may be the Baitoushan
    > event which you say is 1010 +/- 50 years or the Billy Mitchell event.
    >
    > I hope all’s well with you.
    >
    > Cheers
    > Phil
    >
    > PS Britain seems to have found it’s Pat Michaels/Fred Singer/Bob Balling/
    > Dick Lindzen. Our population is only 25 % of yours so we only get 1 for
    > every 4 you have. His name in case you should come across him is
    > Piers Corbyn. He is nowhere near as good as a couple of yours and he’s
    > an utter prat but he’s getting a lot of air time at the moment. For his
    > day job he teaches physics and astronomy at a University and he predicts
    > the weather from solar phenomena. He bets on his predictions months
    > ahead for what will happen in Britain. He now believes he knows all
    > there is to know about the global warming issue. He’s not all bad as
    > he doesn’t have much confidence in nuclear-power safety. Always says
    > that at the begining of his interviews to show he’s not all bad !
    >
    > Cheers Again
    >
    > Phil
    > Dr Phil Jones
    > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 ???
    > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 ???
    > Norwich Email ???@uea.ac.uk
    > NR4 7TJ
    > UK
    > —————————————————————————-
    >
    >”
    This is an example file path, and seems to be endless.
    I think that the master file is still in CRU computer systems,
    so we have to sort files like I did.

    Ilkka.

  136. LazyTeenager says:

    Richard Sharpe says:

    It follows logically from:

    47. The provision of the amount of funds to be made available annually to developing country P
    ——————-
    It does not follow logically from. The manner in which the funds are administered is undefined.There are many alternatives by which the funds could be administered and which do not involve the UN in any way.

    You are making an assumption.

  137. LazyTeenager says:

    Walter H. Schneider says
    Par. 47 states a demand
    ————–
    No it’s not that either. It’s in the form of a contract.
    So it’s defining the obligations of the signatories of the treaty IF they sign up to the treaty.

    So they have started off with a proposed treaty.
    There will be negotiations using that as a starting point or the proposed treaty will be rejected as a starting point.
    Then after they come to an agreement, after lots of changes, then they might sign it.

    You guys get sucked in by headlines every time. You need to ignore the headline, read the actual article and check the primary sources. Well that is what you would do if you were a skeptic.

  138. mpaul says:

    Leon Brozyna says:
    December 10, 2011 at 5:20 pm

    ow do you know you have a consensus if no vote is taken?

    ‘Consensus’ is a term-of-art in climate science. In normal parlance, ‘consensus’ means unanimous support. In climate science, ‘consensus’ means support only from those people who already agree with a particular point of view. Those who disagree are, by definition, explicitly excluded from the consensus. So what this really mean is that the only people who get to decide what’s in the agreement are those who already agree with what’s in the agreement. Everyone else is definitionally excluded.

  139. u.k.(us) says:

    LazyTeenager says:
    December 10, 2011 at 5:02 pm
    ==============
    Care to try again.
    There are many families still trying to recover from the last war..
    You stupid, young …….

  140. davidmhoffer says:

    LazyTeenager;
    The manner in which the funds are administered is undefined.There are many alternatives by which the funds could be administered and which do not involve the UN in any way.
    You are making an assumption.>>>

    So, you’re suggesting that the UN is considering collecting $1.3 Trillion from rich countries to give to poor countries, proposing a “world climate court” to enforce the transfer, and it supposed to happen without any UN involvement? Who runs the court? Who collects the money? Who distributes the money? On what basis? According to what rules? Who oversees the whole thing?

    Could you propose a plausible mechanism to implement such a scheme that is not centrally run? Can you propose a plausible mechanism that would accomplish these goals without UN involvement and over sight? Can you explain why the UN would propose a vast, wide ranging system based on their rules, their proposals, and their enforcement, which they would then walk away from running?

    Who would they turn it over to? Zimbabwe?

  141. JohnD says:

    Let the imagination wonder at how expansive the definition of “security” can be in the hands of a bureaucrats in constant need of expanded relevance, armed with the force of law.

    Then think of your children when reflecting on how we used to be invited to volunteer to recycle, turn off a light when not in use, and lower the thermostat a bit. Funny how “invited to volunteer” has been morphing into “comply or be punished”.

  142. Al G. Funguy says:

    Rothbard saw things clearly. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothbard

    “Rothbard advocated abolition of coercive government control of society and the economy. He considered the monopoly force of government the greatest danger to liberty and the long-term well-being of the populace, labeling the State as nothing but a “gang of thieves writ large”—the locus of the most immoral, grasping and unscrupulous individuals in any society.[6][7][8][9]

    Rothbard concluded that all services provided by monopoly governments could be provided more efficiently by the private sector. He viewed many regulations and laws ostensibly promulgated for the “public interest” as self-interested power grabs by scheming government bureaucrats engaging in dangerously unfettered self-aggrandizement, as they were not subject to market disciplines.”

  143. David says:

    Even the psychotic CAGW scientists are not as inane as these blackbeards.

    “Therefore, it is foolish to demand that policy makers reduce CO2 to 280 ppm. Indeed, if, with a magic wand, we reduced CO2 from today’s 389 ppm to 280 ppm that change would increase Earth’s heat radiation to space by almost 2 watts (per square meter). The planet would rapidly move toward a colder climate, probably colder than the Little Ice Age. Whoever wielded the magic wand might receive a Middle Ages punishment, such as being drawn and quartered.“ – James Hansen, 2010-12-21 in Conversation with Bill McKibben

    I guess for Hansen, no matter what mankind does, it is all world ending disaster.

  144. David says:

    LazyTeenager says:
    December 10, 2011 at 5:02 pm

    Lazy, quit babbling.

  145. Ken Methven says:

    Hoax my ASS! Check out the preceeding draft 38. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/awglca14/eng/crp38.pdf
    Some of the words change, but the thrust is exactly what Lord Monckton warned about. Surely this nonsense will stop given the level of absurdity going on here?

  146. Marian says:

    “Alex the skeptic says:
    December 10, 2011 at 3:34 pm
    According to Monckton, those trillions of dollars would not go direct to the ‘suffering’ nations, but straight to the UN coffers for them to distribute”

    Yeah that’s also a big problem and a rort.

    The UN has already come under fire / criticized for returning upto 90% of socalled AID Money back into their own coffers as ADMIN Fees. As in the case of E.Timor from memory as an example.

  147. DirkH says:

    LazyTeenager says:
    December 10, 2011 at 5:02 pm
    “Nope no sign of them. Which must mean that every one of you who pulls trillions of AGW out of thin air is not particularly skeptical.”

    First of all it means you don’t know the difference between total spending and annual spending. Why don’t you #occupy a tree or something.

  148. David says:

    LazyTeenager says:
    December 10, 2011 at 5:33 pm

    More babbling Lazy, no one said it was signed or agreed on. The unmitagated gall to even write such an inane proposal is beyond parody. (That you attempt to make it sound reasonable is also rather sad.)

  149. Yahoo reported this just a few minutes ago.

    “Climate conference approves landmark deal”
    http://news.yahoo.com/climate-conference-approves-landmark-deal-014244802.html

    “DURBAN, South Africa (AP) — The president of a U.N.
    climate conference has announced agreement on a program
    mapping out a new course by all nations to fight climate
    change over the coming decades.”

    Oooh, sounds impressive! But wait…

    “The 194-party conference agreed to start negotiations on a
    new accord that would put all countries under the same legal
    regime to enforce their commitments to control greenhouse
    gases. It would take effect by 2020 at the latest.”

    So. An agreement.

    An agreement to start (start?! [rhet]WTF have they been doing?[/rhet]) negotiations.

    They’re getting desperate when they have to declare an agreement to continue negotiating a “landmark”.

  150. Leon Brozyna says:

    Leon Brozyna says:
    December 10, 2011 at 5:20 pm

    The latest update from my earlier post …

    Durban has kicked the can … Kyoto extended for five years … and they’ve agreed to come to a new agreement by 2020 … which means, more conferences in exotic locales for the coming decade, all on the taxpayers’ dime. What a racket!

  151. davidmhoffer says:

    Canada has just approved a giant oil sands project in Alberta funded by Total. The approval drew this response from a greasy grimy greeny group (G4 for short):

    http://business.financialpost.com/2011/12/08/critics-fume-as-canada-approves-totals-oil-sands-project/

    The approval of Total E&P Canada’s project during the United Nations climate summit in Durban “is like poking the international process in the eye,” said Gillian McEachern of the group Environmental Defence.
    ————————–

    Go Canada Go!
    (I was hoping for eye gouging rather than poking, but that will come in a few weeks when Canada gets out of Kyoto altogether)
    Go Canada Go!

  152. LazyTeenager says:

    Jimmy Haigh says:
    December 10, 2011 at 4:22 pm
    1,600,000,000,000

    The average number of air molecules you have to count before you find the first CO2.
    ———————
    Sure. Now taking the number of CO2 molecules per cubic meter into account ,and the cross-sectional area of each CO2 molecule, calculated the distance travel by an IR photon before it hits a CO2 molecule.

    Then explain why the few millimeters you get for the answer is too short by a factor of a thousand.

    If you can’t do all of that successfully you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

  153. Jimmy Haigh says:

    tokyoboy says:
    December 10, 2011 at 4:40 pm

    It was a figure of speech…..

  154. davidmhoffer says:

    Kyoto extended for 5 years? What does that mean?

    United States was never in.
    China, Russia, India, Brazil all signed up on the proviso they didn’t have to do anything.
    Europe is teetering on the edge of financial ruin and could very well meet their Kyoto goals through economic collapse.
    Zimbabwe, Maldives, etc etc signed up on the proviso that they GET money, that nobody is going to actually give them.
    Japan says they are out.
    Canada will shortly announce that they are out.

    Japan and Canada? The new leaders of the free world?

  155. davidmhoffer says:

    LazyTeenager;
    If you can’t do all of that successfully you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.>>>

    Given that the comment was obviously sarcastic, not scientific, I have no idea what you are babbling on about.

  156. David Falkner says:

    What if you can’t collect the $1.6 and you have to do it with force? You’d only have a few days before raising the army would offset the bill and there would be nothing left to collect. What a freaking crock. I agree with Lord Monckton. There are several excellent reasons for seeking the end of war, but this is stupid.

  157. Merovign says:

    An in the long chain of words that have been redefined out of existence, “hoax” takes its place.

    I wouldn’t say so to their faces, but I think the people crying “hoax” because more than one draft of the “legitimate” document have been released know that they are using the word wrong, but that would mean they’re liars, and we wouldn’t want to accuse anyone of anything so base.

    Darnit, there goes my “outside voice” again.

  158. LazyTeenager says:

    David says:
    December 10, 2011 at 6:00 pm
    LazyTeenager says:
    December 10, 2011 at 5:33 pm

    More babbling Lazy, no one said it was signed or agreed on. The unmitagated gall to even write such an inane proposal is beyond parody. (That you attempt to make it sound reasonable is also rather sad.)
    ——————
    An implausible unsigned climate treaty, that has proposed expenditures equal to total developed countries military budgets, is causing the WUWT readership to freak out. I would say my babbling is something you need more of.

    I can’t imagine what you guys thought was going to happen if the USA refused to agree to the expenditure part of this treaty, Maybe the UN was going to threaten to nuke one major city at a time until you agreed to cough up the trillions?

    And now that the treaty is out what does it actually say. Cough up trillions or else?

  159. tokyoboy says:

    Jimmy Haigh says: December 10, 2011 at 6:25 pm
    “It was a figure of speech…..”

    OK I’ve got it. Sorry………..

  160. davidmhoffer says:

    Circa 1981

    Alarmist: The world is running out of oil! We must cut back! We must develop alternative energy sources! Like wind mills!
    Realist: Uhm…we developed oil because wind mills don’t work very well. How about nuclear?
    Alarmist: No way! We’ll blow ourselves up! Windmills!

    Circa 2011

    Alarmist: We’re burning too much of the oil we didn’t run out of, and the planet is going to spontaneously combust! We must cut back! We must develop alternative energy sources! Like wind mills!
    Realist: Uhm… we developed oil because wind mills didn’t work very well. How about nuclear?
    Alarmist: No way! We’ll blow ourselves up! Windmills!

    Circa 2041

    Alarmist: There’s an ice age coming!
    Realist: Aren’t you the same idiot I proposed nuclear power to in 1981 and 2011?
    Alarmist: No way! We’ll blow ourselves up! Windmills!

  161. Myrrh says:

    Ken Methven says:
    December 10, 2011 at 5:58 pm
    Hoax my ASS! Check out the preceeding draft 38. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/awglca14/eng/crp38.pdf
    Some of the words change, but the thrust is exactly what Lord Monckton warned about. Surely this nonsense will stop given the level of absurdity going on here?

    Could be that this precis has been doing the rounds and shocking enough staunch supporters previously oblivious to the agenda – saying that there’s a hoax report doing the rounds is an attempt to throw doubt on the reliability of this report without naming it.

    Still, that could easily backfire, such genuinely caring but naive might block out the information if they appreciated it was factual, thinking it a hoax they might well read all the way through it ..

  162. RossP says:

    If the idiots at Durban have agreed to extend Kyoto another 5 years I wonder if this will cause the Climategate email guy to release more emails –perhaps those related to the politicians in the middle of it ???

  163. Bruce Cobb
    Thanks for your link to the revised version:
    http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/awglca14/eng/l04.pdf

    Deleted: “Warfare”, “mother earth”
    Financial is now:

    Welcoming the fast-start finance provided by developed countries as part of their
    collective commitment to provide new and additional resources approaching USD 30
    billion for the period 2010–2012,
    Recalling that developed country Parties commit, in the context of meaningful
    mitigation actions and transparency on implementation, to a goal of mobilizing jointly USD
    100 billion per year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries, . . .
    122. Decides to undertake a work programme on long-term finance in 2012, including
    workshops, to progress on long-term finance in the context of decision 1/CP.16, paragraphs
    97-101;

    Most is voluntarily providing information on 2 or 4 year cycles.
    Still 102 x “Shall”

  164. U.N. climate talks seal legal pact on global warming

    (Reuters) – U.N. climate change talks agreed on a pact on Sunday that for the first time would force all the biggest polluters to take action to slow the pace of global changing.

  165. Climate conference approves landmark deal

    Currently, only industrial countries have legally binding emissions targets under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. Those commitments expire next year, but they will be extended for another five years under the accord adopted Sunday. . . .
    A separate document obliges major developing nations like China and India, excluded under Kyoto, to accept legally binding emissions targets in the future. . . .
    The final compromise, reached at 3:30 a.m., changed the final option to “an agreed outcome with legal force.”

    Please post links to the final documents when available.

  166. Smokey says:

    “… force all the biggest polluters to take action…”

    The biggest polluters are all third world and developing nations, from China and India on down, as the Japanese satellite clearly shows.

    When can the U.S. and the developed West expect that $1.5 trillion from China, India, Africa, etc?

  167. Dave says:

    crosspatch says:
    December 10, 2011 at 10:34 am

    Dear Durban:

    We don’t have the money. We’re broke. Goldman Sachs and China have all of our cash now. We’ve been cleaned out from bailing out bankers for their losses on mortgages that the “little people” still hold at a loss. Nobody bails us out. We’ve been cleaned out from baling out bankers for their losses on government bonds………………….Etc

    Hi crosspatch.
    That was a brilliant comment and so accurate.
    Many thanks.
    Dave

  168. johanna says:

    They are just whistling to cheer themselves up if they imagine that China or India will cripple their economic development, whatever they sign.

    Although, on past performance, China and India will do rather well out of Kyoto and its subsidiaries. They have raked in many millions on the basis of phony ‘carbon credits’.

    Who’d have thunk it? Nations of vast population with a cultural commitment to education might actually be smart enough to work out the angles on proposals put up by rich and flabby nations that are infected by guilt and self-loathing. They can see an opportunity like that coming from a mile off.

    They can simultaneously claim to be requiring of funds, while providing the West with ‘indulgences’ like solar panels.

    What’s not to like?

    Either our diplomats have deteriorated significantly in quality, or their political masters have directed them to rush towards the cliff. Perhaps both.

    Scary stuff.

  169. gary says:

    Perhaps the key for the encrypted files is the message that was put in there .

  170. Dave Worley says:

    Is it just me or does it sound like they are asking/telling us to hand over our weapons?
    That’s what I see. Blatantly.
    Kinda creepy, but seriously………..who the hell do they think they are?
    It’s time to recycle that U.N. building and make a nice park, with some trees, kids playing. That would be sustainable.

  171. MarkG says:

    “Either our diplomats have deteriorated significantly in quality, or their political masters have directed them to rush towards the cliff.”

    Their political masters all see themselves as the one running the ‘World Government’ that the UN want to impose on us. That’s why they don’t care what happens to their own country; they don’t plan to be there.

    We saw something similar in the UK, with many of the failed British politicians moving to fat-cat jobs in the EU where they continued to push policies on Britain that the British people had explicitly rejected at the ballot box.

  172. Rhys Jaggar says:

    And what, precisely, is the collateral demanded of the UN shysters if they take all the money and achieve nothing withi ti?

    [snip . . . c'mon now that's out of line and OTT]

  173. It might be worth checking the status of the document in question before throwing a tizzy fit over nothing.

    The document is in the UNFCCC list of documents here: http://unfccc.int/documentation/documents/advanced_search/items/3594.php?such=j&last_days=60&dat_no=j#beg

    The description is: “Work undertaken in the informal groups in the preparation of a comprehensive and balanced outcome to be presented to the Conference of the Parties for adoption at its seventeenth session. Note by the Chair. ”

    Sounds like the “informal groups” may be a strange lot.
    Whether “to be presented to the Conference of the Parties” means it has to be taken seriously might depend on what became of it when it was presented.

    Take a couple of aspirin, have a lie down, and then check calmly on what became of the “to be presented” document by “informal groups”…. whoever they might be.

  174. John Marshall says:

    With all that money the UN could increase their take home pay by TEN times with hardly a dent in the balance, then give a good amount to their friends the African Leaders as a personal gift and still have change for COP 18.

  175. Myrrh says:

    David L. Hagen says:
    December 10, 2011 at 8:06 pm
    Bruce Cobb
    Thanks for your link to the revised version:
    http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/awglca14/eng/l04.pdf

    Deleted: “Warfare”, “mother earth”
    Financial is now:

    Welcoming the fast-start finance provided by developed countries as part of their
    collective commitment to provide new and additional resources approaching USD 30
    billion for the period 2010–2012,
    Recalling that developed country Parties commit, in the context of meaningful
    mitigation actions and transparency on implementation, to a goal of mobilizing jointly USD
    100 billion per year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries, . . .
    122. Decides to undertake a work programme on long-term finance in 2012, including
    workshops, to progress on long-term finance in the context of decision 1/CP.16, paragraphs
    97-101;

    Most is voluntarily providing information on 2 or 4 year cycles.
    Still 102 x “Shall”

    Lots missing – nothing on human rights, no international climate court – and why is it “English only”? Hurriedly revised because of the stink and no time to translate? Are there orginal copies still in other languages?

    http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/awglca14/eng/crp38.pdf
    http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/awglca14/eng/crp39.pdf
    http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/awglca14/eng/l04.pdf

    Not in sequence.

    =========================
    David L. Hagen says:
    December 10, 2011 at 9:41 am
    To Philip Foster
    Re he fake document. The doc cited above is posted by the UNFCC at
    http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/awglca14/eng/crp39.pdf

    Bruce Cobb says:
    December 10, 2011 at 4:46 pm
    There appear to be two different versions:
    http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/awglca14/eng/crp39.pdf
    http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/awglca14/eng/l04.pdf
    The first is the one linked to above, the second is what is now on the UNFCC website http://unfccc.int/meetings/durban_nov_2011/meeting/6245.php where it says “The AWG-LCA text is now available here.”
    I believe the 2nd, newer version has been watered down considerably, which has angered many. This appears to be somewhat of a repeat of the Copenhagen performance, with some parties already having left, and those remaining desperately trying to strike some sort of deal, as time runs out.

    Ken Methven says:
    December 10, 2011 at 5:58 pm
    Hoax my ASS! Check out the preceeding draft 38. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/awglca14/eng/crp38.pdf
    Some of the words change, but the thrust is exactly what Lord Monckton warned about. Surely this nonsense will stop given the level of absurdity going on here?

    ============================================

    Is the new out-of-sequence version the hoax??

  176. Myrrh says:

    SionedL says:
    December 10, 2011 at 11:02 am
    To Louise: Instead of looking up ‘invite’ and ‘demand’ in your Oxford dictionary, check the history of political speak. Words have whatever meaning they want on any given day. If they can convince you to sign onto a plan today with the word ‘invite’, tomorrow that ‘invite’ becomes a ‘demand’ and the day after ‘coercion’, you want corn? wheat? oil?, then you must ‘voluntarily’ ……and the day after that it is a crime against humanity.

    —————-
    Louis says:
    December 10, 2011 at 11:07 am
    Louise says:
    December 10, 2011 at 9:41 am
    “So you all think the word ‘invite’ actually means ‘demand’ – wow, I knew there were some differences between American and British English but I’d missed that one.”

    The “invite” part only applies to submitting “information on plans to increase their financial contributions”. It’s like when the IRS invites me to submit a tax return every year. I can ignore the request to send in my tax forms but that won’t stop them from demanding their money anyway. There isn’t a global IRS, yet, but the elitists in Durban have already drafted plans to create one.

    You may consider your power bill an “invitation” to pay but, where I live, the power gets shut off if I refuse to pay. So, to me, it’s a “demand”. I don’t have the option to ignore the taxes and fees added on to my power bill and pay for just the electricity I use, do you? If Durban gets its way, their extortion money will be added on to your power bill, your grocery bill, your tax bill, and anything else they can get their hands on. In other words, “invite” is newspeak for “demand” in its Durban context.
    ————-

    David L. Hagen says:
    December 10, 2011 at 11:24 am
    Louise: Re: “So you all think the word ‘invite’ actually means ‘demand’”
    Please evaluate the grammar of para 47 “to be made available” and “shall be”

    funds to be made available annually to developing country Parties, which shall be equivalent to the budget that developed countries spend on defence, security, and warfare.

    e.g. Merriam-Webster definition of shall includes:

    b —used in laws, regulations, or directives to express what is mandatory – “it shall be unlawful to carry firearms”

    —————————-

    Yes,it’s legalese in company speak. Against our human rights, Common Law, etc., for anyone to demand such a thing, so by invitation only, for example, Americans are invited to fill in their IRS forms and pay taxes.

    The tricky bit is that they assume that acknowledgement of the company is de facto recognition of contract between you and said company. For example again IRS, by putting your signature on the request for your money and sending it back saying you’re not going to pay, the private company IRS holds that you have acknowledged that you have a contract with them and so should be paying.

    The wording in these documents are of like ilk – it has to be an invitation to establish a contract, a demand would would organised crime in Common Law, natural law, US Constitution, etc., and demanding money with menaces if penalties are imposed for non-compliance.

    The Brits spread the concept of Common Law to US and Commonwealth, but knowledge of it is being “educated” out of us..

    This is the language of corporations. In Britain the legal system is a corporation for example, if you don’t have a contract with it it has no jurisdiction over you. For another example, MP’s are registered as corporations, they trade as such. Corporations exist to make money.

    Parliamentary acts, statutes, are “legal” in the corporation speak, but cannot usurp your natural Common Law rights, they can only do this by getting your agreement, establishing a contract with you.

    They think they have their arses covered by this, but, since this is not clearly explained and these ‘legal shalls’ presented as if actually lawful, it is still fraud. For example in Britain, by registering your car you establish a contract with the corporation running this and so required to abide by its rules, one of which is that by registering your car you give up ownership of it to the corporation. That’s how they can claim that it is ‘legal’ to take away and trash your car for non-payment of road tax, which would be theft and destruction of one’s property in Common Law. The legalese language deliberately confuses.

    Any contract established by such subterfuge is a con, therefore automatically unlawful. You don’t have to agree to pay the private company the IRS any of your money.. The problem is that if you get sucked into being taken to court for non-payment, the jury most likely won’t understand this, and judges, being part of the system, direct juries to find for the corporation.

    There’s been quite a lot of interest in various groups making a stand against these corporations masquerading as lawfully entitled to steal your money.., but, it seems to me what is actually necessary is to remind everyone of their common law, human, natural, rights and education in the language of coroporation speak – the Brits need to get back Common Law teaching and the Americans insist on their Constitutional rights. This is what we need spread across the world, contrast say for example Napoleonic law, and that it exists at all is still being systematically air brushed out by the meme “democracy” – majority voting doesn’t make something lawful, a democratic tyranny disturbing your peace, threatening you with punishment for not complying with its edicts, is unlawful.

  177. kcrucible says:

    “Note that that is the amount spent by developed countries on defence, not the $1.6 trillion spent worldwide. Either way that’s a lot to spend on parties even for the UN.”

    And, you know, if you don’t want to pay so much feel free to disband your armies….

  178. David says:

    David says:
    December 10, 2011 at 6:00 pm
    LazyTeenager says:
    December 10, 2011 at 5:33 pm

    More babbling Lazy, no one said it was signed or agreed on. The unmitagated gall to even write such an inane proposal is beyond parody. (That you attempt to make it sound reasonable is also rather sad.)
    ——————
    “”An implausible unsigned climate treaty, that has proposed expenditures equal to total developed countries military budgets, is causing the WUWT readership to freak out. I would say my babbling is something you need more of.
    I can’t imagine what you guys thought was going to happen if the USA refused to agree to the expenditure part of this treaty, Maybe the UN was going to threaten to nuke one major city at a time until you agreed to cough up the trillions
    And now that the treaty is out what does it actually say. Cough up trillions or else?””

    Lazy; why would we need more of your babbling, the comments you mock were on how insane the mind set was of thousands of people being flown, at taxpayers expense, to write an asinine treaty that would create world war three if implemented. Many of the same posters noted it would not fly. Your last sentance, “And now that the treaty is out what does it actually say. Cough up trillions or else?” No Lazy, It does not, and no one articulated your strawman; the treaty sounds like a treaty to keep working towards a new treaty; it is a sick joke fully worthy of all the ridcule heaped on it here.

    However, the damage done by the CAGW panic (Which you attempt to promote) is far greater then the cost of these imbiciles travling around the world to promote inane proposals.. It is the hundreds of billions, if not trillions all ready spent, wasted on carbon trading, wind and solar mandates , wasted on yet one more “the frogs are getting bigger or smaller due to CO2 study”; all of which combine to make energy, all energy, far more expensive then it would be if sanity prevailed. This has contributed strongly to the worlds economic crisis, and prevented the only real solution to pull the world out of the economic crisis, inexpensive energy. So Lazy, these idiots you support have not gotton their way, but they have effectively destroyed the worlds economy, and your support is a part of the problem.

    CO2 is not pollution, and thanks to the CO2 introduced in the atmosphere, all crops, worldwide, now grow 10% to 15% more food then they otherwise would. Without this we would be a world at war now. If population is your main concern, then alow those nations cheep energy, and watch them find the resources to curb real pollution and naturally, as happens in every nation that develops, reduce or stop their population growth.

  179. thingadonta says:

    I wish a really big volcano would go off and shut up all these wowsers.

  180. Dave Worley says:

    “Sounds like the “informal groups” may be a strange lot.
    Whether “to be presented to the Conference of the Parties” means it has to be taken seriously might depend on what became of it when it was presented.”

    Yes they are a strange lot indeed. This informal document clearly reveals the true goal of all this.

  181. Myrrh
    Re: “Is the new out-of-sequence version the hoax??”

    NO
    See: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/awglca14/eng/l04.pdf
    That is still posted by unfcc.int

    I have never seen the hoax. Just read reports that it existed.

  182. Myrrh says:

    David L. Hagen says:
    December 11, 2011 at 10:06 am
    Myrrh
    Re: “Is the new out-of-sequence version the hoax??”

    NO
    See: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/awglca14/eng/l04.pdf
    That is still posted by unfcc.int

    Yes, I’ve seen that one, it’s a lot different from the 38 & 39 papers while appearing to be the same.., and, it’s in “English only” – I wonder if it’s just been put together to distance temporarily from the real 38/39 versions.

    I don’t have my printer working at the moment, and can’t compare the versions easily.

    I have never seen the hoax. Just read reports that it existed

    Back to my first thought then, they have had such a backlash from the version 39 Monckton covers, possibly even at the conference itself, perhaps there are some who’ve never seen it writ large like this before, that simply putting out a rumour that there’s a fake doing the rounds creates enough confusion that some might now think the Monckton precis to be that, the original is off the wall enough.. They’ve just been a bit clever about it if they first produced the text with wrong dates, which the countries didn’t know about etc., which they could then say was the hoax they meant..

    http://junkscience.com/2011/12/10/fake-text-derails-durban-talks/

    “Fake text derails Durban talks
    Posted on December 10, 2011 by Steve Milloy | 2 Comments
    Now who would do something like that?
    The Guardian reports:

    A fake negotiating text has been circulated at the UN climate talks in Durban in what some delegates believe to be a deliberate attempt to derail the process, which is already in danger of failure because time is fast running out to clinch a deal.

    The talks were scheduled to finish on Friday evening but ran on through the night, for the second night running, and will not finish until late afternoon on Saturday.

    In what could have been a bizarre mistake, or else a ploy to sabotage the talks, the fake text was sent to delegates with a note that it had been drawn up by Mexico, the EU, the US and the Basic countries – Brazil, South Africa, India and China. It was dismissed by several of the countries named, who said it was different to their position on key details.

    In particular, the text said work on a new climate agreement should start in the first half of 2012, when in fact the countries named want the new phase to begin immediately, and it said a new legal instrument should be adopted with effect from 2020, whereas the EU wants a text saying “no later than 2020″.”

    A bit OT, a side step, while I was searching for Monckton Durban 2011 Mother Earth and finding lots of ‘UN eco-fascists’ mentions, I came across an idea I’ve not seen before, a movement to de-colonize America by the American Indians: http://unsettlingamerica.wordpress.com/2011/12/01/for-america-to-live-europe-must-die/ It’s about the mind-set of the European in the mix of marxism capitalism science contrasted with native views. I think he’s making too much of wood as renewable therefore good…, a through rose coloured glasses at his own history, but, how would one bring in, say, the cheap energy of coal to everyone without there being an industrial/capitalist/marxist system to extract it?

  183. kim2ooo says:

    LazyTeenager says:
    December 10, 2011

    [ " ...................................." ]

    In my school…. they have “Reading for Comprehension” in the “Learning Assistance Labs”.

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    David says:
    December 11, 2011 at 7:28 am

    Well Said!

Comments are closed.