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.
“The CRU reports to their directors , the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the IPCC reports to their directors , The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) .”
Which in turn reports to their vegetarian overlords 🙂
OT, but relates to my other post on icebergs, it didn’t take long to sping it in favour of AGW:
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/giant-iceberg-spotted-south-of-australia-20091209-kjxw.html
I thought that the rules said that documents produced on the public purse had to carry the names of the authors.
I think I’ve found the ‘circle of commitment’ on video:
http://www.unmultimedia.org/s/photo/detail/420/0420806.html
It goes right to the top.
One of the men behind the curtain, a member of the ‘circle of commitment’.
http://www.unis.unvienna.org/unis/pressrels/2004/sga882.html
“…more control over future talks within a “circle of commitment”…
Any bets on how long until it becomes a circular firing squad?
But they all want sexual equality… i.e equal distribution of free prostitutes.
Their Integrity overflows.
I’ve been following this all day now, and I’m not convinced that this leak is real.
1. The language, tone and desired outcomes are almost totally opposite to the other leaked Copenhagen agreement from a few months ago. Remember that one? The one with the massive transfer of wealth to developing countries. This document has developing countries supporting the developed countries. It also had the formation of a new world governemnt. This one seems to have the World Bank deeply involved. How come such a radically different document.
2. The timing is interesting, coming so soon into the meeting. More like a softening up process (“See? This is how bad it can get!”) than a genuine idea.
3. The MSM are all over this one like a rash, within seconds of the “leak”. How much coverage is there of Climategate?
This seems to me to be like a Penn & Teller card trick: You can pick any card, then as Penn goes off on a tangent and Teller mimes along, you forget that they forced you into taking the Three of Clubs.
Oh, and finally: the “Ring of Commitment”. Just how much does that sound like an X-Files conspiracy episode?
I’m from Germany and I frequently read your wonderful website. I want to give you the link to danish text draft here in PDF-Form, so you don’t have to go through the ugly Guardian scroll scam:
http://thehill.com/images/stories/blogs/danishdraft.pdf
By the way, in Germany nearly nobody ever read the original draft of the Kopenhagen conference. Though I know that this website mainly deals with the scientific parts of the fraud, it should be obvious that this is in strong connection to the overall fraud, which goes way back to 1972 up till now together with an ever growing climate alarmism.
I therefore also want to give everyone the link to the original COP5 draft:
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/awglca6/eng/inf01.pdf
I think, that everyone who’s interested, should be able to get the whole picture of this overwhelming scientific AND political fraud. So, here is the
draft, which is the basis (along with the danish draft) of the conference:
It’s at times like this I wish I’d taken a different career path. Can you imagine how much money the leaker at CRU is going to make when his name eventually becomes known? If he gets less than 10 million quid for the story then his agent (he’ll get an agent, of course he will: I wish I’d gone into the business so that I could get my ten percent) isn’t trying very hard.
My Story: How I Saved the World by The Man Who Leaked The Truth About Climate Change.
No, too long.
How about ‘A Very Convenient Truth’?
Ten million? He’ll make more money than JK Rowling in speaking engagements alone. It costs $1200 just to shake Gore’s fat paw. Everyone in the world should queue up to say thanks to the whistleblower, either this one or the one who finally puts the knife in.
The plaudits of an astonished and grateful world… and ten million quid. Anyone at CRU/GISS/NOAA listening?
JF
Thanks Detlef!
Warming fraud aims to limit world growth :
http://www.eagletribune.com/puopinion/local_story_338000415.html?keyword=secondarystory
Further rifts on day 3: http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/analysis/2254765/further-rifts-emerge-day-three
There appear to be a small group of pip-squeak poorer countries led by Tuvalu including the Cook Islands, Barbados and Fiji, as well as a number of poor African countries including Sierra Leone, Senegal and Cape Verde are holding the talks hostage until they get their proposal (the “Tuvalu Proposal”) considered.
Remember “The Mouse That Roared”? Well, perhaps these are the Rats That Roared. The good news is the lying thieving hypocrites are fighting amongst themselves. Science, Truth, and indeed, Democracy depends on the fighting continuing. We can only hope.
NZ knew about leaked ‘Danish Text’
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10614490
Nick Smith is a thumping idiot, looks it too
Temperature dips in Copenhagen below 0 (max and min) from Wed night onwards. Just in time for Obama?
http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/index/danmark/regionaludsigten/kbhnsj.htm
Great for Public Perception… arguing to reduce Global Warming in the middle of a blizzard (one hopes)
“Tony B (another one) (08:51:49) :
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:
“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.”
Very Interesting – thanks for posting. I noticed that they gave the same treatment to the word “natural”. Apparently, as you pointed out, what they mean by “natural” and “correct” may not be what most people mean by those words. They need to get their models right, so that the “right” people always get the “right” answers.
One person’s “disarray” is another’s method.
Go Copenhagen, and don’t come back till your gone.
We are greatly amused by this whole thing. When can we start holding these people to account? When do we start “High Crimes and Treason” proceedings?