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.
From news.com.au
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
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 FOIA.zip 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!
Ecotretas
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!
On the BBC site now:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/12/cop15_copenhagen_climate_summi_1.html
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?
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.
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
http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3553
‘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 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 :).
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
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.
Dividing the loot is the point when criminal gangs naturally fall apart.
“The Circle of Commitment” is awesomely sinister sounding!
Isn’t it clear that this was the work of a Russian hacker?
Ecotretas
Secret treaties secretly arrived at. I believe such behavior has been known to cause war.
I wonder who the UN has in their sights?
Cleavage in the American Physical Society :
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/08/taking_liberties/entry5933353.shtml
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”?