A summary of opinion related to the UN conference on climate in NYC
Collated by Benny Peiser.
Copenhagen was essentially sidelined yesterday at another event, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon’s Climate Change Summit in New York. There, along with Chinese leader Hu Jintao, U.S. President Barack Obama more or less shuffled climate control policy off into the great dreamscape of unattainable plans and long range objectives. Like equality for all and peace in our time, the world will have to wait for sweeping and binding climate policy.
–Terence Corcoran, Financial Post, 22 September 2009
The UN Climate Change Summit in New York managed to produce a concrete result. It has nothing to do with CO2 reduction targets, however, but with a simple political insight: Forget Copenhagen! The chances that the Copenhagen summit will deliver more than just a non-binding framework agreement decreased further on Tuesday. They now tend towards zero. Therefore, it would be best to postpone the climate conference until the United States is ready to agree to clear progress in negotiations. Otherwise, there is a real danger that a compromise formula in Copenhagen would make any progress impossible for years to come because the big climate sinners could hide behind the agreement.
–Editorial, Financial Times Deutschland, 22 September 2009
Initially, many climate activists had hoped this year would yield a pact in which nations would agree to cut their greenhouse gas emissions under the auspices of a legal international treaty. But recent announcements by China, Japan and other nations point to a different outcome of U.N. climate talks that will be held in December in Copenhagen: a political deal that would establish global federalism on climate policy, with each nation pledging to take steps domestically.
–Juliet Eilperin and Colum Lynch, The Washington Post, 23 September 2009
The significance of the Chinese proposal is that it indicates that China is willing to join Europe, the United States and others in a fantasyland of climate policy detached from policy reality. It is hard to believe how that outcome leads some to greater optimism on climate policy.
—Roger Pielke Jr, 31 August 2009
None of the alarmists and their supercomputer climate models ever predicted even a 30-year respite in their apocalyptic scenarios. Neither did they predict the sun, that thermonuclear furnace in the sky that has more influence on earth’s climate than any number of Ford Explorers, would suddenly go quiet for an indefinite period. Latif and others conclude that, at the very least, we have time to think about it and analyze and learn. We don’t have to fight global warming by inflicting global poverty. More things on Earth affect climate than are dreamed up in computer models.
—Investor’s Business Daily, 22 September 2009
If you want to know what I think is going on inside Prime Ministers’offices around the world, it’s ‘Let’s kick this into the long grass.’ Because that is what it will take to approach the problem. The short-termism is gone.
–Benny Peiser, LTT, 14 November 2008
According to the WSJ, Copenhagen will be merely political pronouncements.
Just postpone these wild dreams as long as possible, and reality inevitably prevails. Then look how they will twist, scream and eventually look for another mounting man-made catastrophe. After decades of pressing the “scientific consensus” down our throats and finally the whole affair being proved wrong, public will be much more reserved to the next hype (well I hope at least).
Time is working for us.
Reposted from tips section:
Hi Anthony, I love your site.
I heard an interesting interview today on AM640 in Toronto. Here is the link:
http://www.640toronto.com/HostsandShows/Podcasts.aspx
Do you know what study Richard Zurawski is referring to, this University of Chicago meta study that found a 97% support of AGW theory? I suspect an astroturf operation here, but don’t know enough about the players involved.
Perhaps a story on your site is warranted…the tape is rather interesting….you should give it a listen.
Cheers!
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it makes all plants grow, and without it all life on earth would cease to exist. That’s what we are, carbon lifeforms, one and all.
Sucks to have bet on this hoax actually working.
I am relieved that the UN will not save me.
I suppose James Hansen is home preparing a rocket ship for the infant Kal-El to be sent to a cooler planet. Perhaps the crystals will contain all past content of realclimate.org and the director’s cut of An Inconvenient Truth…
The best take on this is that the leadership is looking for a gentle way out of the AGW madness.
George Tobin,
Great image. I am still smiling.
Probably impolite to suggest that voters should kick world leaders into the grass.
God save us from those who promise to save us.
U.S. Department of Energy Undersecretary of Science Steve Koonin had some interesting things to say about all this yesterday also. The one statement that disturbs me was “Given coal is 1/2 the power generation in the country, Koonin said the price of carbon must be made “evident to the consumer. “If we want to reduce carbon emissions, we need to set a price on carbon emissions.” , but even that has a bolt hole – “if we want to……”
From:
http://www.dtnprogressivefarmer.com/dtnag/common/link.do?symbolicName=/ag/blogs/template1&blogHandle=policy&blogEntryId=8a82c0bc239b24620123e169665c036b&showCommentsOverride=false
It won’t stop all those eco-warriors clocking up their airmiles and drinking lots of wine, will it?
It might give them enough air miles for a nice trip to Goa, mightn’t it?
I wonder what their carbon footprints will be??
ding, dong, the witch is dead, wicked witch, bad old witch,
Ding, Dong, the Witch of Copenhagen is dead!!!
and since you mentioned Kal-El, it’s a perfect time for a reprise of this news flash:
(the picture alone is worth the look!)
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/al_gore_places_infant_son_in
But wait.. Warming oceans melt glaciers
http://www.physorg.com/news172917431.html
Don’t ken how to make it clickable.
Hey policy makers,
You want a sustainable ecology? Do you want balance? The money for destroying the environment comes from the government backed banking cartels. The purchasing power for that money, OTOH, is looted from all money holders for the sake of banks and borrowers.
Who could ever guess that government backed, systematic,violation of the 8th Commandment would cause problems?
This planet is almost too stupid to live on. Beam me up, Lord!
If Copenhagen goes ahead, the real reason for the Global Warming Hoax will become apparent: A bureaucratic World Govwernment, a la European Union.
You colonialists should jolly well think yourselves lucky. We have a Marxist Socialist government (Noo Labour is Old Labour (flat-cap & hob-nail boots & a mighty chip on the shoulder) with a high-street suit, filofax & a mobile phone) that wants to control every aspect of our lives, because they know what’s best for us all more than we do. Everything we do, eat, drink, say & think, health & safety, political correctness (e.g. we no longer have colleagues, but co-workers). Every day more & more lives are being intruded upon via function creep laws, i.e. a law brought in to combat a particular aspect of say, terrorism, only to be found being used far more by local town & district councils to attack behaviour of a more benign kind. All the anti-terror laws in the UK are being used in this way, yet we were told catagorically that they would only be use for anti-terrorism measures. As I may have boringly said before, in the 1950’s as a result of a ghastly world war, the UK had around 6 laws entitling the “State” to enter one’s home, by force if necessary. In the 1990’s it had risen an order of magnitude to 60, thanks to the likes of the IRA & Lybia. We now have some 266 such laws. Oh joy & bliss. I know you guys do things slightly differently to we Brits, but it would be interesting to see what gets passed in the next 4 years in the USA. We will fritter away what wealth we have left on loony schemes & policies, build loads of useless windmills at a rate of about 2/week my foot, – Milliband (a thousanth of a band?) reckons 40% of our energy supplies will come from renewables by 2020, the clueless prat! There is barely time to indulge in Richard Courtney’s geo-engineering rescue ladder as far as I can see. Last person leaving the UK don’t bother turning the lights off, there’s no power anyway.
wws (09:29:42) :
The Onion has it wrong. The baby in the picture is Senator John Edwards’ love child.
Reed Coray
Interesting to contemplate that the origins of the EU were in regulating the coal and steel markets in Europe.
======================================
On prediction, if ten years of no-warming is consistent with ten year noise in climate model runs, but we only have less than ten years in which to act to avert tipping points, then what is the point of the models?
Yes we could wait and see what the climate is like in 50 years, but then it will be too late. Yes we could wait and see whether the models can be relied on because their predictions in 50 years can be checked, but by then it will be too late. So models are irrelevant to decision making. May as well state something simpler.
Have a big number guestimated by consensus expert opinion.
I’d say you deserve a cold one, Anthony. The Powers That Be have recognized that any serious attack upon carbon fuels will be politically, bureaucratically, and economically inviable. Now they’re just looking for nuanced ways to back off from the issue without enraging their radical kook base. Once these schemes die, the cannot again be resurrected. The immediate danger has passed. Now begins the long task of purging the literature and the institutions, and restoring credibility to science.
Don S 09:30:47
Thanks for the link to that article. There’s a wonderful line in it near the bottom: “..species…. such as polar bears and seals find their habitat is melting away. We’re heading off to a climate extreme and it’s just going to snowball.”
Wow! Lookout, the melting ice is snowballing!!
Shall we take it as good news that the Won is hitting warmening hard now that we’ve(mostly) moved on?
Tin ear? Glad he can’t/won’t learn from Slick.
kim, you are wrong, and you are committing a similar error to the alarmist one in getting politics involved in a scientific question. The EC did start up with a free trade area in coal and steel. But the reason was not to regulate the coal and steel markets. The aim of the founders (read up on Monnet) was to eliminate the increasingly destructive European civil wars. They had been sparked by Franco German rivalry, and they had taken place with increasing destructiveness and loss of life ever since around 1640.
The founders looked at this history, at the millions of deaths and total devastation wreaked by these wars. Tour Belgium today, and you can see from the cemeteries some of what they led to. They resolved that it was essential to abridge the sovereignty of the European nations to prevent this ever happening again, as the next time might lead to total destruction. They were probably right in view of history. They chose coal and steel to start with, and moved on. They succeeded, because the truth of the proposition was evident to everyone who had lived through WWII in Europe. Never again.
None of which has anything to do with the simple scientific question: is it plausible that increased man made CO2 will lead to disastrous global warming?
We can accept or reject that, without regard to what we think about nation states and supranational organizations, and should we have as our aim getting at the truth on either question, we should keep them separate. They have nothing whatever to do with each other, and a devotion to the sovereignty of the nation state has no bearing on what one thinks of the hypothesis of global warming, or the other way around either.
This political stuff is in the same category as the alarmist hysteria over the Heartland institute, Exxon, tobacco, evolution, Dick Cheney, neo-cons, you name it. Its just hysteria, and stupid with it. On both sides.
I fear this flurry of articles is meaningless. The appearance of China’s hand in carbon cap legislation is ominous. They can advance world socialism simply by agreeing to controls (which they have little or no intent of imposing on themselves), in order to finesse the US et al into locking themselves into an odious agreement. If Obama has sold out, Copenhagen will be a slam dunk for the watermelons.
I give kudos to my political opponents when they are due.
Kudos to President Obama for adopting a more measured and practical approach to the much debated matter of reputed AGW.
In this, he is actually thus far proving superior to his predecessor, who, in spite of party affiliation and claims by Leftist moonbats to be “a shill of industry” actually proved to be, sadly, somewhat of a believer in Gaia worship.
We will rue the day we got distracted with all this nonsense and I pray we’ll right the ship in my lifetime.
Michel,
I disagree with you analysis of the EC being to do with eliminating war. NATO was set up with that aim – a military force united under one command structure, and insured by the nuclear threat MAD. The EC was originally the European Economic Community, and it’s primary purpose was to gain a trading advantage with respect to the rest of the world. It was originally supported by the Conservatives while Labour remained skeptical, even hostile. It was only when it became apparant that the ECC would embody a socialist agenda that it became acceptable to the left, and for the same reason, less palatable to the Thatcherites.
I will again note that a weird climate-politics power-play is emerging in Canada. It appears there are Bay St. (financial) people getting onboard with fear-mongering that, as a trading nation, Canada will get stuck behind low-carbon trade-walls. They found some American commentator to come on-the-air and say USA will sink into another Great Depression (with Canada being dragged along) if a low-carbon trade-barrier war breaks out. More media doom-&-gloom spin. What is weird to me is that the news agency carrying this spin has been woven into the fabric of the right-wing movement in Canada for the past 3.5 or more years. We’re now hearing the importance of “India & China” (with big warm smiles) every 5 minutes, whereas for the past few years those have been dirty words uttered with spit. It is weird to watch the about-face with the spin. I’m not really sure what is up because it is completely inconsistent with the (non-alarmist mainstream-Canadian) messaging of recent years; however, I suspect someone is plotting to prosper financially &/or politically. It could be interesting to see how this poker-hand unfolds. One guy has 4 aces, but his opponent thinks he has nothing. Maybe the other guy thinks he has 4 aces. Sometimes there’s actually a buck to be made by bluffing (even for those who are so deluded they don’t even know they’re bluffing). Does the truth factor into any of this? It’s clearly not relevant for these players, but that won’t change my interest in natural climate factors. Finally, whichever player wins the hand, I don’t see any benefit in the pot for the environment — it’s just a choice between poisons.
“”” None of which has anything to do with the simple scientific question: is it plausible that increased man made CO2 will lead to disastrous global warming? “””
Simple scientific answer; no it isn’t plausible. Even the most ardent supporters of CO2 warming seem to agree that without WATER VAPOR FEEDBACK, CO2 just can’t hack it. So CO2 is just the instigator; that annoying burr under the saddle, that prompts the dastardly ocean evaporation to do the dirty work. But then shucks; water also exists in the atmosphere as a liquid and solid, in the forms of various cloud types; and they demonstrably result in planetary cooling to disarm the evaporation monster.
But you see, anybody can see for themselves, that the ocean evaporation monster, needs no help at all from CO2 to get to work in GHGing the atmosphere, and warming us up out of our natural ice ball state.
All this could be resolved if Peter Humbug and his friends would simply construct a computer model of planet earth; instead of whatever it is they think they are modelling.
As if you don’t think the Warmists aren’t the New Puritans:
FTP:”Otherwise, there is a real danger that a compromise formula in Copenhagen would make any progress impossible for years to come because the big climate sinners could hide behind the agreement.
–Editorial, Financial Times Deutschland, 22 September 2009″
Sinners in the hands of an angry Gaia…
H. L. Mencken -“The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.”
-regarding Puritans…
Kyoto didn’t even put a dent in the CO2 numbers. Lots of countries have made it to their committments (lots haven’t) but there has been no change in the trendlines at all.
Until the recession hit that is. It looks like emissions will decline by 2.0% this year. That still means CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will increase by 1.96 ppm (instead of 2.02 ppm).
In other words, we need new technology that works (and works economically and works economically in large scale mega-project sizes that can be copied a thousand times over across the whole world). We don’t need more targets, more caps, more lightbulbs and more Agreements.
Stop Press!!!!
The BBC’s daily magazine programme, The One Show, currently airing, leftie-greenie UK Guardianista Journo Lucie Siegle has just pulled off an absoule lu lu! Whilst normally seeking every opportunity to push her left-green agenda, she has just done a “consumer” piece about a flueless gas fire, announcing in front of millions of viewers, that the fire cleverly converts the fumes into…………wait for it……….”harmless carbon dioxide & water vapour”!!!!!!!! Well blow me down. Who’d a thunk it. I bet for the first time in her life she has made such a pronouncement. It’s offical chaps & chapesses, CARBON DIOXIDE is a HARMLESS GAS, this from a greenie-leftie enviro-mentalist! She actually said it without wretching believe it or not. Could she be changing her stance…..naah, no chance. Whatever next.
Sinners in the hands of an angry Gaia… Douglas
Whatever happened to Gaia?
Can it be she’s not?
Or did she leave the kitchen
when it got too hot?
I never believed in Gaia
but she kept the pagans quiet.
Now, a little change in temp
and they start to riot
Paul V 11:10:35 There is always a lot of dissonance when a paradigm collapses. The twists and turns of the fall of belief will produce a lot of opportunities to make as well as to lose a lot of money.
Michel 10:52:28. First, you do not demonstrate that what I said was wrong, or in error. Secondly, I agree with a lot of the rest of what you say.
============================================
Did anyone see the video of Brown on the phone with activist at avaaz.org? It was embarrassing.
You have this young, presumably sincere woman, who could barely muster a hundred protesters in Trafalger square, a place that has in the past swelled with the ranks of hundreds of thousands, begging the prime minister to go to Copenhagen to fight for the strongest possible climate deal.
“As a young person I’m really terrified that not enough is being done to reach an agreement” she said.
“I too am concerned and worried. I know that the commitment to two degrees is not enough in itself. We’ll continue to fight for a climate change agreement” he said.
Yet behind the sympathetic words of Brown, was he all the time thinking of ways to kick it into the grass?
U.N. climate meeting was propaganda: Czech president Vaclav Claus:
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE58L6ID20090922
Best news I’ve seen all day.
Last person leaving the UK don’t bother turning the lights off, there’s no power anyway. Alan the Brit
Ah, justice! Did you guys think you could found the Bank of England and escape consequences?
Abolish central banking in the UK and I’ll pray for your quick recovery.
Whether Copenhagen results in a real international agreement or not, domestic activists will still be pushing for unilateral economy-destroying measures. This fight is far from over.
WWS, thanks for the link to Gore-Al. When the movie comes out, I suggest Kal Penn play Kal-Al. 🙂
Nice photo, although the invasive weed cogongrass might be more appropriate.
http://www.al.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/photo/for/veg/cogongrass3.jpg
Unbearable arrogance:
http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2009/09/unbearable-arrogance.html
Alan the Brit (11:32:46) : “The BBC’s daily magazine programme, The One Show, currently airing, leftie-greenie UK Guardianista Journo Lucie Siegle has just pulled off an absoule lu lu! Whilst normally seeking every opportunity to push her left-green agenda, she has just done a “consumer” piece about a flueless gas fire, announcing in front of millions of viewers, that the fire cleverly converts the fumes into…………wait for it……….”harmless carbon dioxide & water vapour”!!!!!!!! ”
This is exactly what a catalytic converter does with auto exhaust and how it was sold as a requirement for all gas powered autos. But then somehow the physics of the universe self changed CO2 into an Earth destroying pollutant. Perhaps a reverse Andromeda Strain.
Don’t be surprised to see China more than willing to start setting CO2 limits in a few years. By that time, China will be the dominant supplier of solar panels, nuke power plants, CO2 sequestration and a host of other “green” technologies and they’ll make a bundle selling it to the USA and Europe or as a condition of going along with limits on their CO2 emissions.
In 5-10 years China will have enough Nuke plants built or in the pipeline so that their emissions will start leveling off anyway.
Besides the raw materials found in the USA and the Steel and Cars produced here isn’t everything else consumed in the USA already made in China?
When China finally ends up owning the USA they’ll be happy to supply Obama mandated technology to their USA based companies such as GM, GE, Westinghouse and Apple.
“Now begins the long task of purging the literature and the institutions, and restoring credibility to science.”
There’s material here for 1000 sociology dissertations on how this madness was accepted, aided, and abetted, and how heretics were marginalized and stigmatized.
The papers, since it’s the end of the month, are creating a veritable snowstorm in the skies above the journals. If there is no organization or direction or coordination among these authors, this is the most remarkable set of coincidences in my experience.
http://www.physorg.com/news172937155.html
According to this, we are already over three of the nine barriers leading to inevitable death to the human race (my conclusion). No actual papers to support the study here, just anecdotal material.
“When China finally ends up owning the USA” Sorry to tell you mate. China and Japan already own the USA. If the USA does anything to displease China, China holds enough US currency to demand a change. Look it up on the web. It’s kind interesting who holds the most US debt.
As a footnote, the President of the Maldives spoke at the UN yesterday talking about how AGW was going to destroy his country but read the scientific article following it:
The President of the Maldives, the Indian Ocean islands threatened with extinction by rising sea levels, told the United Nations climate-change summit yesterday that the country’s appeals for help had fallen on deaf ears for 20 years.
“Once or twice a year we are invited to attend an important climate change event such as this one — often as a keynote speaker,” Mohammed Nasheed told world leaders at the UN headquarters in New York.
“On cue, we stand here and tell you just how bad things are. We warn you that unless you act quickly and decisively, our homeland and others like it will disappear before the rising sea, before the end of this century.
“We in the Maldives desperately want to believe that one day our words will have an effect, and so we continue to shout them even though, deep down, we know that you are not really listening,” he said.
Mr Nasheed had again been invited to address a UN climate summit, in the approach to the Copenhagen conference this December at which world leaders hope to “seal the deal” on reducing gas emissions. His speech was sandwiched between those by the two leaders best equipped to save his island nation: President Hu of China and President Obama of the US, representing world’s No 1 and No 2 greenhouse gas emitters respectively.
But Mr Nasheed argued that developing nations must be ready to accept binding targets even if rich countries do not act. “We ask world leaders to discard those habits that have led to 20 years of complacency and broken promises on climate change, and instead seize the historic opportunity that sits at the end of the road to Copenhagen,” he said.
However, the facts tell us otherwise:
XVI INQUA Congress
Paper No. 93-14
Presentation Time: 1:30 PM-4:30 PM
THE MALDIVES SEA LEVEL PROJECT. II: PAST-PRESENT-FUTURE
MÖRNER, Nils-Axel, Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm Univ, Stockholm S-10691 Sweden, morner@pog.su.se.
The Maldives have a uniquely position in sea level research (as discussed in Integrated Coastal Zone Management, No. 1, 2000, p. 17-20). In the last decade, they have attracted special attention because, in the IPCC-scenario, the Maldives would be condemned to become flooded in the next 50-100 years. Our research data do not lend support to any such flooding scenario, however. On the contrary, we find no signs of any on-going sea level rise. Our results comes from visits to numerous islands including extensive work on Hulhudoo and Guidhoo in the north, in Viligili and Loshfuchi (the site of “the reef woman”) in the middle, and in Addu in the south. This includes coring, levelling, sampling and dating (35 C14-dates). Present sea level was reached at about 4500 BP. In the last 4000 years, sea level oscillated around the present in the last 4000 years. At 3900 BP, there was a short and sharp sea level high-stand at about +1.2 m. For the last millennium, a detailed sea level record is established: +0 m 1000-800 BP, +60 cm 800-300 BP, 0 to just below 0 in the 18th century AD, +30 cm 1790-1970 AD, fall to 0 in ~1970 up to today. At about 1970, sea level fell by 20-30 cm (presumably due to increased evaporation). This is recorded in storm level, high-tide level, mean sea level and in lake and lagoon levels (from the north to the south). In the last decade, there are no signs of any rise in sea level. Hence, we are able to free the islands from the condemnation to become flooded in the 21st century.
Co-authored with the Maldives Project Team Members.
XVI INQUA Congress
General Information for this Meeting
IPPC table refutes claim that humans are prime source for CO2 increases:
http://www.iceagenow.com/IPCC_table_refutes_claim_that_humans_are_prime_source_for_CO2_increases.htm
Don S. (13:30:45) :
The papers, since it’s the end of the month, are creating a veritable snowstorm in the skies above the journals. If there is no organization or direction or coordination among these authors, this is the most remarkable set of coincidences in my experience.
http://www.physorg.com/news172937155.html
According to this, we are already over three of the nine barriers leading to inevitable death to the human race (my conclusion). No actual papers to support the study here, just anecdotal material.
Don S,
Thanks for the link, but don’t worry, it’s all BS (BAD SCIENCE)
The entire concept of the earth not being able to sustain a large (consuming) population is a hoax.
There are a few items we have to tackle but we can deal with them.
hunter (09:16:23) :
Yes, yes, of course: They are looking for a kinder, gentler AGW.
edward (12:36:43) :
GE, Westinghouse AND Sylvania went to China in the last Energy bill.
It was the sweetener applied to get the votes.
We still have so much oil to burn!:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/24/business/energy-environment/24oil.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss
“We still have so much oil to burn!:”
Not to mention all that methyl-hydrate (methane).
The best of the opinions:
“..Chinese leader Hu Jintao, U.S. President Barack Obama more or less shuffled climate control policy off into the great dreamscape of unattainable plans and long range objectives. Like equality for all and peace in our time, the world will have to wait for sweeping and binding climate policy.
–Terence Corcoran, Financial Post, 22 September 2009
None of the alarmists and their supercomputer climate models ever predicted ..the sun, that thermonuclear furnace in the sky that has more influence on earth’s climate than any number of Ford Explorers, would suddenly go quiet for an indefinite period. .. We don’t have to fight global warming by inflicting global poverty. More things on Earth affect climate than are dreamed up in computer models.
–Investor’s Business Daily, 22 September 2009”
This last bit – priceless
The Maldives is a curious case. Pretty much the entire economy is longhaul tourism. If the CO2 emissions from these flights were included in their ‘carbon footprint’ they would have one of the world’s highest CO2 emissions per capita and probably the world’s highest per unit of GDP.
They are currently going through a severe recession because tourist numbers are down. The Danes had to pay for their president to fly to Copenhagen. Yet they are advocating CO2 emissions reductions which would likely wreck their economy completely by making long haul travel much more expensive.
I find it hard to credit people can be so irrational especially in light of the scientific evidence that no appreciable sea level rise has occurred in the Maldives.
Another good article written by Bob Carter:
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/09/planning-for-global-cooling
Sorry to rain on everyone’s parade, but the self congratulations are premature and not warranted by a handful of news articles.
The opponents of free men are zealous in their commitment to dominate and will not give up at a mere blip of noise in the MSM.
Philip_B (15:30:39) :
“The Maldives is a curious case. Pretty much the entire economy is longhaul tourism. If the CO2 emissions from these flights were included in their ‘carbon footprint’ they would have one of the world’s highest CO2 emissions per capita and probably the world’s highest per unit of GDP.
They are currently going through a severe recession because tourist numbers are down. The Danes had to pay for their president to fly to Copenhagen. Yet they are advocating CO2 emissions reductions which would likely wreck their economy completely by making long haul travel much more expensive.
I find it hard to credit people can be so irrational especially in light of the scientific evidence that no appreciable sea level rise has occurred in the Maldives.”
Philip_B
The Maldives have become the UN IPCC showcase of the predicted rising oceans.
There is nothing wrong with the Maldives. There is a lot wrong however with their government.
They hoped their island would be flooded with “guild money” paid by the G20 but I think it’s not going to happen.
The money is gone because of the economic crises and there is not even enough capital available to finance the expected economic up swing.
The Maldivian politicians have gambled on a dead horse.
ASgree, Edward. It’s a pincer movement: get ahead on the new, green technologies (solar panels, LED lights etc) and get costs down to marginal cost quickly to lock out competitors. Revenue stream 1: selling this (actually, very good) product.
Then get certainty at Copenhagen about forestry carbon credits, and plant like hell. China denuded much of it’s existing forest back in the make-yer-own-iron Great Leap Backwards days (estimated death toll: 20-60 mill), so there’s a Lot of territory to re-plant. Revenue stream 2: Sucker money from the rest of the world.
Left hook, right uppercut.
He announced an ice age in 1971 and produced the graphs presented in “An Inconvenient Truth”. Guess what he does today!
http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=873
Via Climate Depot
Limiting EPA’s powers to regulate:
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/09/23/awkward-senators-move-to-rein-in-epa-as-obama-talks-tough-on-climate/
Via Climate Depot
It is indeed heatening to see the EU carbon market working seamlessly:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26118293-11949,00.html
The last few days in Australia have been interesting. We had a terrific storm Tuesday night. Then over night high winds blew up a dust storm, we all woke to a red sky in the morning, and the media spun the event in to proof of AGW. Now today, it’s a typycal, blue-dome, warm sunny, spring day.
But then I read this;
http://www.smh.com.au/national/politicians-get-a-pay-rise-20090924-g3e8.html
And I feel ill. KRudd747 sqandered the surplus the previous 10 left by Howard. There is now deficit. All the time taking more and more money directly out of my earning, even before I can spend it, and then they award themselves a payrise.
Errmmm…”the previous 10″ should have read “the previous 10 years”…
Jon Stewart tonight made fun of all the carbon being burned for the U.N. climate change summit and the lot of nothing happening there.
Now what am I supposed to do with my Prius?
Wayne Findley (17:49:27) :
ASgree, Edward. It’s a pincer movement: get ahead on the new, green technologies (solar panels, LED lights etc) and get costs down to marginal cost quickly to lock out competitors. Revenue stream 1: selling this (actually, very good) product.
Then get certainty at Copenhagen about forestry carbon credits, and plant like hell. China denuded much of it’s existing forest back in the make-yer-own-iron Great Leap Backwards days (estimated death toll: 20-60 mill), so there’s a Lot of territory to re-plant. Revenue stream 2: Sucker money from the rest of the world.
Left hook, right uppercut.
——————————
Ooh that’s clever – I know they are basically saying “yeh, climate change whatever as long as *you* pay no problem” but didn’t consider the extra revenue and the forestry credit angle…..
Scrap it and get Ferrari,if you can afford one, start enjoying life again.Or atleast until the next big scare that somebody can dream up comes along.
Scrap it and get Ferrari,if you can afford one, start enjoying life again.Or atleast until the next big scare.
Graeme Rodaughan (17:01:23) :
I agree wholeheartedly with your comment Graeme. The fanatics will not let Copenhagen die quietly. The rising clamor in the my local ill informed press and various BBC news outlets is already unbearable. The roar will get louder and louder in the run up to the big event.
After the craziness of environmentalists preventing a solar project on a few percent of the Mojave desert, we should now know that letting this group have any serious input into government policy would be an end of the world-like nightmare. I’ve noted that the few rabid activists (as opposed to more sensible concerned citizens) that I have known anything about hated their fathers or mothers. I think it would be a good psycho-sociological research project to interview individuals at random among nut-fringe activist protest rallies. Unfortunately, the corrupted humanity sciences are all mixed in with their subjects.
EdBhoy:
“The rising clamor in the my local ill informed press and various BBC news outlets is already unbearable. ”
When I saw the word “local” I thought for an insane moment you meant your local pub. No, I thinks to myself. For in the local pubs it is never mentioned. Nor anywhere else where ordinary mortals congregate. Not in the workplace, nor in the bingo halls, not at sporting events nor in the parks and walkways. Everywhere silence. Only in the fevered minds of the activists do they wish feverishly for a mandate from the people, one that remains as elusive as ever.
Did I tell you about Brown’s telephone chat with that activist in Trafalger square? In the background, if you listen carefully you can make out individual voices, like a handful of people chatting in a large empty auditorium (a bit like a Lib Dem party conference (UK not US)), not the deafening raw of a true crowd.
Grass roots support? What grass roots?
I haven’t seen this article mentioned at WUWT yet: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/science/earth/23cool.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=climate&st=cse
“Stable Global Temperatures Could Stifle Action on Climate”
There are a few howlers in there for dedicated WUWTers, but of the “well, what do you expect from reporters” variety, and more balanced than one usually expects from Big Media on climate change.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/09/why-i-am-an-anthropogenic-global-warming-sceptic-michael-hammer/
In response to Douglas DC:
Mencken may have picked up his puritan views from Thomas MacAulay who wrote, “The Puritans were opposed to bear baiting, not because it harmed the bear, but because it gave pleasure to the bear baiters.”
The significance of the Chinese proposal is that it indicates that China is willing to join Europe, the United States and others in a fantasyland of climate policy detached from policy reality. It is hard to believe how that outcome leads some to greater optimism on climate policy.
–Roger Pielke Jr, 31 August 2009
The way to see how it leads to some greater optimism is by decoding what the Chinese said. I’ve worked with a “Chinese Business Partner” from Hong Kong for about 30 years, on and off. Along the way I got have a bit of a clue about the ways in which the Chinese speak without saying anything…
You listen for the negative space. What ought to have been said but was not said. You also listen for the OOPART – Out Of Place Artifact.
Negative space:
1) There were no numbers given. There will be no reduction in Chinese carbon consumption unless they are stuck with a firm commitment with a size. Otherwise, you will get one new coal plant delayed in its startup by a week; the missed date will be claimed as reduction of coal consumption, and then it is back to business as usual.
2) There was no discussion of the evil of AGW. They don’t buy into the thesis.
3) There was no claim that the west would have to compensate. Do you really expect China to take a hit and not at least ask for the “gimmie” ?
OOPARTS:
1) They talked about change in proportion to GDP. The Chinese “angle” is that they ought to be allowed to produce just as much carbon PER $ or Euro OF GDP as the west. Given their much lower cost basis in dollars or Euro it is pretty clear that the “game” here is to say they get to produce MORE total carbon than the rest of us since their GDP is so low measured in our currencies. Now the second bit of this is that GDP is often measured “per capita” and they have one heck of a lot of capitas… This is sort of a ‘negative space’ issue in that they did not actually make it clear if it was total GDP or per capita, but the rule with Chinese negotiators is that if it is unsaid, it is interpreted as the one that is most in their favor unless and until you force the issue and get a statement to the contrary (preferably in writing and by a high ranking counter party…) This, IMHO, is the “smoking gun” that says China is NOT on board with the whole carbon reduction thing.
2) The mention of needing western partnership to achieve reductions. Any time a Chinese negotiator is talking about a ‘partnership’, check for your wallet. They are simply fishing for how much money the west will pony up if they look like they will play along. Will we fund a few dozen new “clean coal” or “carbon capture ready” coal plants in exchange for shutting down some of their oldest and most decrepit plants that are near death anyway? Will we transfer interesting technologies with licenses to manufacture (hey, if we are going to be buying a lot of windmills and flue scrubbers, someone will be making them at a profit: send license, China make!)
3) The claim that they had goals of some percent (was it 20%?) energy from renewables and would be planting forests for carbon capture. They are so starved for energy, and so much of the country is not near any infrastructure, that they have no real choice but to get a lot of their energy from ‘renewables’ (i.e. the old fashioned way of burning wood and damming rivers; but also some newer construction techniques and solar panels). Heck, they denuded a lot of their forests in stupid central planning schemes some time ago, they NEED to replant them for fiber and fuel. So they plant now, maybe with us sending buckets of money for “Carbon Credits” then in 1/4 century when ready to harvest, they cut and run. I could even see old growth being logged and new plantings being claimed as “new sequestration”. No Problem. And the one place where things like solar really makes sense is the rural village with one TV and a small well water pump. So China has the cheapest cost to manufacture solar panels and the largest rational need (no way to make a country sized grid in less than a decade or two). OK, now all they need is a western subsidy and it’s party time in Bejing.
There were other more subtile weasel words, but you get the picture.
Just remember that the cultural norm is not to say “You are wrong you idiot”, it is to say “I understand your issues and would like to work as a partner” while thinking “How can I fleece this idiot most efficiently while leaving them happy with the process?”
Heck, I could even see them working an angle where they take our technology licenses for mitigation gear, build the products to sell back to us, and ask for a share of the “carbon credit” money for the fact that they have forgone using the devices themselves so that we might have them faster to meet our goals… just to be helpful to a ‘partner’ …
BTW, for anyone who wants to try to spin these observations into some kind of denigration of Chinese: I was sitting on the same side of the table as my Chinese partner and we worked the contracts together, both making money. I admire the skill even if I can’t stretch the truth that much myself. I was just glad not to be on the other side of the table. (I was the ‘token white guy’ public face.) Then there is also the fact that I had a serious crush on a Chinese girl I grew up with (and who was my date at the High School Reunion). I am very much favorably inclined toward Chinese and their culture. Just don’t ever think you know what game is being played unless you are on their side in the planning sessions…
So my read on all this “China is on board” stuff is simple:
1) They aren’t
2) They do smell money
3) They don’t want to spook the marks by being “against” them
4) They are doing an initial volley in a 5 year “negotiation”
5) They expect to win big in the “Carbon Credit” casino
6) They will.
The only real question I see is which western politicians and countries will be most effectively and efficiently fleeced. (Done well, they will never even realize they were “had” and will likely advertise their great “partnership” and how satisfied they are with the “servicing” they have gotten!)
My guess is Germany and England will head the list, with some minor EU countries in tow. France is fairly good at working the angles itself, so I don’t expect it to get taken much (I do expect them to get some kinds of contracts out of it, probably for joint sales of something to OTHER countries. The French know how to cut a deal to sell stuff to places like, oh, Iran with a Chinese partner and be on the right side of the table… See the deals they have done for arms and nuclear gear, for example.) Russia will sit back and watch, trying to figure out how the Chinese are doing this, them emulate it a bit more ham handedly. Finally, the U.S.A. will be a mixed bag of some folks being taken, some being on the right side of the table, and some smart enough to let the “deal” go by.
That, BTW, is one of the major advantages of a capitalist society. The jokers who get taken go out of business leaving behind a more competent set of players. In central planned and socialist oligopolies, they just get a ‘bail out’ from the government and attend a conference where they announce their next grand plan… using your money…
BTW, if any Chinese companies need a “token white guy public face”, I’m experienced at it and like being on the winning side. Look good in a suit, know when to shut up and let the mark take the bait. Keep secrets well. Also like the “off the menu” Chinese food that can only be ordered by folks who grew speaking Chinese and know what to ask for…
(God I miss that. My partner would order so many interesting things that were never on any menu. And the staff were delighted to have someone who knew what to order, not just the usual stuff. I need to round up another Chinese friend with an expense account… Though he did have a good laugh at me when I ate the “little red peppers that you are not supposed to eat”. Heck, if they are in the food, how are you supposed to know not to eat them?! Was a bit hot, though. About like Uncle Ken’s Texas Chili 8-0 !! but worth it 🙂 We had some kind of 7 garlic beef tendon once that was a delight. Like 18 hour brisket in flavor and tenderness and LOTS of garlic. Yes, beef tendon. Amazing what those folks can do with parts of an animal we toss out…)
In summary: Expect “happy talk”. Do not expect any reduction in carbon emissions unless highly profitable from western money. Even then, check for hidden new emissions outside of the contract.
Talking about long grass!
If the environmentalists get their way, long grass will be the only way to wipe your ass in the near future:
http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2009/09/is-there-any-aspect-of-your-life.html
“Climate control? Are they on this Earth or Fullers?”
-Tallbloke 2008-
Jeremy Clarkson pinpoints it:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=4050&linkbox=true
Short but powerful:
http://www.newsmax.com/brennan/obama_global_warming/2009/09/23/263810.html
The wellbeing of this planet is far to important to leave to enviromentalists.(quote)
And while the world leaders kick climate change in the long grass, enviro’s get crazier by the day, after lamps and toilet paper they have started a jihad against tv’s.:
http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2009/09/enviros-on-jihad-against-tvs.html
It’s about time!
CO2 is green and good for the environment:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/24/AR2009092404797.html?hpid=sec-business
George E Smith (11:11:00, 23 sept)
On water vapour / cloud being more important than CO2:
I have no figures on this but have a strong suspicion that air travel may in fact be a net cooler not warmer, due to contrail clouds.
http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2009/09/making-law-ignoring-science-taxing-via.html
I think this article made some interesting points, I read a textbook directly related to this topic, its called Public Finance: A Contemporary Application of Theory to Policy by David N Hyman , I found my used copy for less than the bookstores at http://www.belabooks.com/books/9780324537192.htm