More Leaks – Copenhagen in disarray


Leaks may soon deflate this balloon

Leaking, again? These aren’t the CRUTape documents, but secret docs from “the Circle of Commitment”  describing the way some manipulators wanted Copenhagen’s agreement to pan out. See it here

This quote (from the Guardian article) sums it up pretty well:

“It is being done in secret. Clearly the intention is to get [Barack] Obama and the leaders of other rich countries to muscle it through when they arrive next week. It effectively is the end of the UN process,” said one diplomat, who asked to remain nameless.

At least one person had scruples, or we wouldn’t be hearing about it now.


Copenhagen conference in ‘disarray’

TALKS at the United Nations climate change conference in Copenhagen have broken down over leaked documents indicating that wealthier nations would be given more power in future climate change negotiations.

The documents seem to allow a handful of rich countries to have larger emissions and more control over future talks within a “circle of commitment” and have enraged delegates from developing countries.

The US, UK, and Denmark are among the countries included in the so-called “Danish text.”

The document also sets unequal limits on per capita carbon emissions for developed and developing countries in 2050; meaning that people in rich countries would be permitted to emit nearly twice as much under the proposals.

The secret draft agreement worked on by a group of individuals known as “the circle of commitment” – understood to include the UK, US and Denmark –  has only been shown to a handful of countries since it was finalised this week, The Guardian reports.

The agreement, leaked to the paper, is a departure from the Kyoto protocol’s principle that rich nations, which have emitted the bulk of the CO2, should take on firm and binding commitments to reduce greenhouse gases, while poorer nations were not compelled to act.

The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank; would abandon the Kyoto protocol – the only legally binding treaty that the world has on emissions reductions; and would make any money to help poor countries adapt to climate change dependent on them taking a range of actions.

The document was described last night by one senior diplomat as “a very dangerous document for developing countries. It is a fundamental reworking of the UN balance of obligations. It is to be superimposed without discussion on the talks”, the paper reports.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of
The Great and Mighty Gore!

That’s either an enormously thick-skinned balloon,it’s sited atop an enormously high building or children aren’t allowed air-rifles in Denmark.

Dave in Canada

Things have certainly been getting interesting lately….is this a sign of a revolution from within AGW circles?
I wonder.

Douglas DC

Great and Mighty-
It’s a bubble that is about to burst.


What do you expect?
Copenhagen is not about climate, it is about money.


They wouldn’t have been able to sell this at home if we were obligated to live in the same penurious conditions as they want to impose on the rest of the world.


Is the circle of commitment circling the wagons?

Ron H.

Any of the UN officials at Copenhagen who are concerned about these leaks can find a solution by clicking on the Google ad for “Acme Leak Detection and Plumbing” I see at the bottom of this post. :-:

That’s the icing on the cake… or should I say Danish? (couldn’t resist, sorry)


Take any and all agreements signed at Copenhagen by the left and right corners, rip… fold in half and rip again. Continue until a pile of fire starter is achieved. Strike match, enjoy the warmth. Mr Harper are you listening?


Which crook is better at handling the money? The UN? Or the World Bank? I think that is the only issue they are fighting over. Who controls the money. Which is what climate change has been about from the beginning.


I didn’t think my jaw could drop any further…


I am skeptical of this story.
If they drafted such a document and yet left out China and India those countries would head for the door in a heartbeat. Unless of course they ARE named in the list of ‘rich countries’ or perhaps they are given a separate but equally juicy deal.


To misquote the A Team – “Don’t you just love it when a scam falls apart?”

Michael Alexis

Pay no attention to those statists behind the curtain.

The Circle of Commitment document is here.
It has this sentence: “Support the goal of a peak global emissions as soon as possible, but no later than [2020] ….”
where the square brackets indicate that the final number is to be filled in.
Peak global emissions in only 11 years !!
These people either are stupid or they can’t do arithmetic.

Scott Covert

What can I say?
I’m shocked and bewildered.
(That we got to hear about it BEFORE it was signed into law)




Hurray – first cheering thing I’ve read all day about Copenhagen – how do we tell the developing countries: just follow your instincts and learn from history – in the last 60 years, when have developed countries ever done anything but bankroll your dictators and buy your exports (from oil to coffee) other than at prices determined to keep you enslaved economically.


It’s quite humorous how serious these would-be signatories are – their sense of power to influence planetary climate regimen – “to hold temperature rises to 2 degree Celsius”. I am sure Mother Earth will have the final say on this figure regardless of posturing humans’ “commitments”.


I have been traumatized and have lost money because I thought the science was settled.
I made decisions that rid myself of actual opportunities because of that ‘settled science’.
When I found out that the ‘settled science’ was fabricated I was gutted.
I now wish to find out how many people will be prepared to join me in a class action against the proponents of AGW so that I can recover the income I have lost and compensate me for the trauma and stress I have experienced because of their false statements.
And, I do not need anyone to join my action.
Kind regards

Robert M.

JMacqueen is right, this is about the money. BO and company get to add a huge source of tax revenue that has no strings attached. No one will really be able to tell if emissions get reduced or not. The rest of the world will be repressed as usual, only this time we are doing it to them instead of them doing it to themselves.


@jmacqueen. Absolutely! Its about maintaining the status quo. Its about maintaining the Wests competitive and industrial edge over the rapidly industrialising deloping nations akin to keeping your foot on their heads to stop them getting further up the ladder than you. All this climate hooey is just a smokescreen.

John Cooke

Hmmm … odd, nothing on BBC News 24 or their website about this yet 😉

David L. Hagen

Greenpeace weighs in with:Draft climate proposal leaks out in Copenhagen
December 8, 2009 | 8:08 am

“The Danish proposal falls far short of emissions cuts needed, and remains vague on the climate cash,” Oxfam International, a group concerned with climate and global poverty issues, said in a press release after obtaining the draft text.
The World Wildlife Fund’s Kim Carstensen said in a statement that the text is “weak and reflects a too elitist, selective and non-transparent approach by the Danish presidency.”

No wonder Obama shifted his arrival from the beginning [embarrassing Climategate] to the end [sign on the dotted that gives him leverage].
I’m still reeling from the attempt by the EPA to classify CO2 as a pollutant – [snip]?
It is beyond parody – do these people know nothing at all?
I keep telling friends that CO2 is the building block of life and is a tiny fraction of the atmosphere – they go ‘no – it’s bad for us – look at the drowning polar bears’.
I can’t believe that in 2009, the average person has zero grasp of even the most basic facts of how life on Earth works.


Please leak some more, please, please, please


Another leak suits me fine.
It’s now time to focus on the real problems we have, the abundance toxic contaminants world wide, the rain forest, the endangered animals, birds and fish.


What bugs me is that these people, who never stood for election, are sitting there negotiating how much gas I can buy to get to work, how much I can heat my home, how much my employer can expand, etc.
Control of CO2 means absolute control of the economy. If we are not allowed to expand nuclear energy, then all energy production requires the creation of CO2. How does one get the copper for the wiring of turbine generators or electric motors without mining and smelting and drawing wire, shipping it to the manufacturer, etc? How does one ship batteries around and dispose of them without creating CO2?
Once again, this really isn’t about CO2. We could embark on a nuclear generation program to replace nearly all the CO2 we currently produce from baseline power generation with technology that exists right this minute. But that isn’t the real issue. The real issue is turning over global economic control to a flock of unelected bureaucrats.
By allocating CO2 emissions limits you allocate economic growth allowance. Controlling CO2 is controlling economic growth. Imagine you make ping-pong balls. How do you double your production without shipping twice as much product and running machines twice as much and doubling your “per capita” CO2 production?
You could do it in a nuclear electric economy. You can’t do it in the sort of economy they are trying to build. How many windmills does it take to power a copper smelter or a blast furnace? You can’t do it. They are actually FORCING us to remain reliant on fossil fuel for large industrial power and allowing only certain countries to expand that sort of power production thereby allowing only certain countries to grow heavy industry.
I really wish a major news outlet would explain that to people. You are constantly reminded of your darned lightbulbs but domestic household lighting is only a tiny fraction of total energy use in this country.

Tony B (another one)

As there are now so many threads on this site it is difficult to know where best to post material, so I apologise if this is OT (and also a little long). Perhaps a thread designed for comments on the contents would be useful?
Reading some of the Climategate materials today, I came across this text, within a document entitled prescient.doc (Palaeoclimatic Research and Earth System Modelling for Enhanced ClImatic and ENvironmental PredicTion) which is essentially a proposal to gain funding:
“We propose a joint five-year Earth Science/Atmospheric Science Thematic Programme of Research designed to enable more rigorous testing of the capabilities and reliability of GCMs, with a specific focus on increasing the sophistication and versatility of the Earth System model being developed at the UK Meteorological Office Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research (HC).”
Further down within the body text is this:
“The reality of climate change on many timescales is widely appreciated. However, the need to quantify the contributions of different ‘natural’ and anthropogenic forcings to recent climate change and their roles in future climate, are issues that have now also gained virtually universal recognition. It is self evident that there are enormous environmental, economic, societal and hence political implications for gaining a practical understanding of the factors that govern the mean states and the variability of the world’s present and future climates. Achieving a ‘correct’ and timely attribution of human induced climate change and providing realistic estimates of its impacts and the likely rates of induced changes, represent major and urgent scientific challenges.”
Now call me a cynic if you wish….
The word was used exactly as shown above (i.e. within quotation marks). I am not sure whether the use of the quotation marks has the same resonance in all countries, but in the UK, it is not unusual for such use to imply something, along the lines of “we all know what we are talking about here, don’t we”.
If I had used the word “correct” (i.e. in quotes, exactly as it was used in the document) in such a context it would almost certainly therefore have been code, for what I really meant (but would not want to state unequivocally).
What I really meant here would have been “the politically correct”, or “right answer for our paymasters”, rather than the “accurate” answer.
So, I suggest, that this document (apparently created in 1998) is rather interesting in the genesis/development of the AGW scam.
[Note: in the U.S., quotation marks mean the words between them are being quoted verbatim. ~dbs, mod.]

Looks to me that they will make Earth a favour and go home!

John Cooke. Yes, the BBC isn’t what it once was, I’m afraid. It took them almost two weeks to run proper news items on the CRU leak!

David Harrington
Old Goat

Something or someone needs to put the brakes on this dreadful rollercoaster of global deceit, because all the press reports we’re hearing here in the UK seem to be egging on this loony leftwing greeniefest.. Especially now the WMO is saying that the last ten years have been warmer rather than cooler. Now I’M totally confused.
Which is it, can ANYONE without an agenda say with any certainty?

Robert Morris

We can only hope this is true and not some sort of hokum. If it is then India & China will walk and the West will be saved the “redistributive” agony of Cap ‘n’ Trade.

George S.

The ultimate cynicism!
I’m appalled and unsurprised at the hubris of these children masquerading as adults.
I don’t wish to enslave my country nor those of the developing nations.
Grrmphh…arrgghhhh…these people make me ill. I would like to see this blow up in their collective faces.


I saw this via Instapundit: The graphs of the Ice Data

‘Oh what a tangled web they weave’
‘Shooting fish in a barrell’
How many more cliched idioms are they going to subject themselves to?


Oh, this leak doesn’t change anything…
The underlying science is unequivocal… it’s worse than we thought…
These are just politicians behaving badly… the goals were taken out of context… everyone’s hidden agenda looks bad if you take it out of context…
Think of the Polar Bears! Tuvalu is sinking! Increased hurricanes! Fire! Flood! Famine! Fear! Fear!


Last week, Piers Corbyn was in a tv interview about climate change. Mostly he argued the science with a Russian staffer at WWF. However, right at the end he said something that seemed counter intuitive.
Most skeptics assume that the developed nations are about to sleepwalk into a new treaty which will transfer wealth to the developing world. Corbyn said the opposite: the AGW scare is designed by the developed nations to stop the developing nations from catching up. And yet, this leak does seem to suggest a conspiracy along those lines.
• Not allow poor countries to emit more than 1.44 tonnes of carbon per person by 2050, while allowing rich countries to emit 2.67 tonnes.
• Force developing countries to agree to specific emission cuts and measures that were not part of the original UN agreement;
Maybe Western leaders are smarter than we have given them credit for, and are gaming the system to benefit of the West.

John Laidlaw

John Cooke (08:46:20) :
Hmmm … odd, nothing on BBC News 24 or their website about this yet 😉

Oh, don’t worry – now the Glorious Grauniad has reported it, it’ll be on the list for broadcast :).

Phillip Bratby

How do we know the document was leaked to the Guarniad? It could have been the work of a Russian hacker.


Maybe they will all be glad climategate happened so they now can forget the whole thing and go home LOL

Greyledge Gal

The most telling thing here is that they want to move power from the UN to the World Bank. It IS all about the money and a cabal of powerful world leaders and billionaires. They finally show their hand that it is not about helping the earth but about lining their pockets so that they can continue to fly around on private jets and eating caviar on the backs of “the people of earth”.
The billionaires behind this need to be exposed and jailed. The politicians need to be exposed, charged, and removed from government. Then the sane people of the planet can start to rebuild it based on freedom, liberty, integrity, and free market capitalism.


This is like the Congress of Vienna, but worldwide in scope deciding both which countries and which businesses will gain and which will lose and Obama trying to portray himself as a latter-day Metternich.

John W.

Dividing the loot is the point when criminal gangs naturally fall apart.

Karl Maki

“The Circle of Commitment” is awesomely sinister sounding!

Isn’t it clear that this was the work of a Russian hacker?

Secret treaties secretly arrived at. I believe such behavior has been known to cause war.
I wonder who the UN has in their sights?

Mike A.

Didn’t the UN plagiarize that “Circle of Committment”/”Circle of Trust” concept from the Ben Stiller/Robert DeNiro movie Meet The Parents?
Can we coin a new version “The circle of distrust”?