When the Guardian, that champion of everything “green” says it, you know it was a failure.
Excerpt:
The UN climate summit reached a weak outline of a global agreement last night in Copenhagen, falling far short of what Britain and many poor countries were seeking and leaving months of tough negotiations to come.
After eight draft texts and all-day talks between 115 world leaders, it was left to Barack Obama and Wen Jiabao, the Chinese premier, to broker a political agreement. The so-called Copenhagen accord “recognises” the scientific case for keeping temperature rises to no more than 2C but did not contain commitments to emissions reductions to achieve that goal.
American officials spun the deal as a “meaningful agreement”, but even Obama said: “This progress is not enough.”
“We have come a long way, but we have much further to go,” he added.
The deal was brokered between China, South Africa, India, Brazil and the US, but late last night it was still unclear whether it would be adopted by all 192 countries in the full plenary session.
The agreement aims to provide $30bn in funding for poor countries to adapt to climate change from next year to 2012, and $100bn a year after 2020.
But it disappointed African and other vulnerable countries who had been holding out for far deeper emission cuts to hold the global temperature rise to 1.5C this century. As widely expected, all references to 1.5C in previous drafts were removed at the last minute, but more surprisingly, the earlier 2050 goal of reducing global CO2 emissions by 80% was also dropped.
The agreement also set up a forestry deal which is hoped would significantly reduce deforestation in return for cash. It lacked the kind of independent verification of emission reductions by developing countries that the US and others demanded.
Obama hinted that China was to blame for the lack of a substantial deal. In a press conference he condemned the insistence of some countries to look backwards to previous environmental agreements. He said developing countries should be “getting out of that mindset, and moving towards the position where everybody recognises that we all need to move together”.
Read entire story at the Guardian here
===========================
Now compare what the Guardian has written, to what Obama says:
===========================
My summary of the Copenhagen Climate Conference is just a bit less wordy.
I did a post on the Guardian website as leicestersq. It was deleted by the moderator.
All I can think of was stating my belief that ‘manmade global warming was a load of tosh’. I think that those were the words.
I didnt insult anyone, just the theory. I am entitled to my beliefs.
And it appears that the Guardian wont let those beliefs be expressed.
Can I amend this phrase in the article: “falling far short of what Britain and many poor countries were seeking”
to “falling far short of what Britain and many OTHER poor countries were seeking”.
It’s a small but necessary change to preserve accuracy.
A Daniel B. Botkin, professor emeritus in the Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology at the University of California, Santa Barbara, has just published an opinion article at the Wall Street Journal Online titled “Global Warming and an Odd Bull Moose.”
I won’t post it here observing the journal’s copyright. But it is a brilliant piece I’m sure most here will connect with. Its an observation regarding climate models. It captures my own thinking regarding their likely accuracy as well as my position on the new way of studying science.
Do try to give it a read.
Ditto! Can we do this before my stock runs empty? In a cold country like mine (it is -13C outside now), incandescent light bulbs are 100% effective when used indoors. Most people here heat their homes using electric power anyway.
That nonsense about banning incandescent light bulbs is really annoying and expensive.
BBc is now admitting a partal success
With any luck, if the representatives of the G-77 countries keep screaming for a few weeks demanding action on catastrophic man made global warming and the dopey MSM gives them the oxygen of publicity (apparently one loon mutilated herself), then an unintended consequence will be that the general public (who don’t follow this blog, WUWT, CA etc.) will finally be appaised of the AGW scam and also realise the extent to which they are being shafted by the useless politicians.
Possibly then the people who placed their trust in these “science is settled” loons will start taking notice, think about it and then the pennies will start to drop.
Stan Needham (19:31:18) :
But, but, but, but……..the AP said it was an “unprecendented” agreement.
And indeed it was. It was the first last and only time that an agreement will be made at COP15. Thus it is without precedent.
Climate is just the vehicle. This is about really power and money. The UN cannot exist as ‘world-government’ without funds and so it is essential for it to set up a working structure ready for the input of those funds and bully the world into accepting that structure.
Think of this as an inverse international drug cartel… where ‘dollar’ is the drug of choice. First the cartel (the West) has to get the victim (the Third World) to sample its product. It does this through promises and threats. Once hooked, the Third World will quickly become dependent upon a regular supply of ‘dollar’ being delivered to its door. In fact, like most junkies, its previous ability to get on with an independent life will quickly collapse into a rabid dependency on the suppler for its regular ‘fix’ of dollar.
In turn, the cartel will harvest the dollar it exports from the fields of the poor amongst its own people. In its unprocessed form of ‘tax’, the cartel will screw the highest yields it can from those who will feel it most – the poor of the West… using the power it has grabbed to threaten – and carry out – ‘punishment’ if the demanded quotas are not met.
The Third World, meanwhile will sing and dance to whatever tune the cartel whistles… fully aware of the threat of withdrawal of its drug supply if it isn’t compliant (democracy be-damned!).
Far-fetched? Without any shame, UK Environment Secretary Ed Miliband was already threatening the Third World yesterday that his demands “would have to be endorsed to unlock funds outlined in the deal, including $30 billion in “quick-start” aid from 2010-12, rising to $100 billion (£62bn) a year from 2020.” (Daily Telegraph).
Hurrah the agw buffons have failed! Thanks to Watts Up, Climate Audit, and all the other blogs which have single-handedly stood firm on demanding real science be provided before we all start handing the keys of our cars to some twit from the UN.
This opaque project to control the citizenry of the world through energy rationing has failed miserably. I reckon even Obama tweaked that this is all less about any real threat to mankind, and more about greed, control and fanatsy ideologies.
This is analogous to Howard Dean criticizing Obama for not being left enough.
IOW, business as usual. So what?
China has got it’s priorities right:-
HEAD OF CHINA’S CLIMATE DELEGATION, XIE ZHENHUA
“The meeting has had a positive result, everyone should be happy. After negotiations both sides have managed to preserve their bottom line. For the Chinese this was our sovereignty and our national interest.”
THEIR ‘national interest’ comes first!
Amusing fisking of the AP attack on Willis
http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2009/dec/19/letter-associated-press-review-of-climategate-e/
A point that other commentators have missed (and one that especially those who are not in the US may not realize) is that the promised $100 billion is just magic pixie dust, not real. The first thing that Obama said when he got back to the states is “nothing is legally binding on the US.” Which means no money unless Congress votes for it, and that means in an election year Congress is going to be asked (with voters already worried about the deficits!) to give away $100 billion (or 30, or whatever) to countries that have promised nothing.
So will this money be appropriated? Oh hell no, this is just another airy-fairy promise that will get swept under the rug. When the time comes and someone brings it up, an excuse will be found for not doing it. That’s about all Obama is really good at.
Michael Mann in the Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/17/AR2009121703682.html
I stopped reading comments at when they got to about 150, but the ones I saw were easily 10 to 1 against.
Thanks Wattsupwiththat!
The naive conspirers, thanks God (to the God they don´t believe in) were:
aghast, horrified, shocked, amazed, stunned, appalled, astonished, startled, astounded, confounded, awestruck, horror-struck, thunder-struck
Martin Brumby (01:22:25) :
OK, we won a battle.
Now we have to win a war.
Not just any battle, though. I believe this defeat will prove to be their Waterloo. Yes, of course the war will go on, and we need to keep the pressure on so that they don’t regain the momentum they have now lost. Political support for the AGW/CC “Cause”, especially in the U.S., where it was weakest to begin with, is crumbling though, as is support for its primary promoters, the Democrats, who will very likely see punishing losses in the mid-term elections next year. That will be a further warning shot across the bow to Obama and bedfellows to beware; they could be next on the chopping block.
One thing that concerns me about this, is how the third and developing world sees the west/developed world.There’s already enough animosity between these two (or three) different camps. Part of the campaign of propaganda promoting the AGW theory, is the treat of floods, famine, storms etc… threatening particular areas of the world.
Over the following years and decades, every nature disaster (weather related) will be blamed on on the west and the desire to migrate away from these supposedly threatened regions will increase.
This isn’t over. The transparency/compliance mechanism is nothing like what the Senate wanted. Statements by nations of “voluntary” emission goals will be micro-scrutinized by skeptics and the loopholes will soon be made evident and public. Climategate will spread and further erode support for AGW “science”. The battle now moves to the States. Be ready.
Copenhagen was less about Golbal Warming than many suppose. The issue of AGW was taken over by politicians, billionaires, marxists, anarchists, and nuts of every kind and gender. Copenhagen was a chance, a real opportunity, to “Change the Social Order” and make some great profits; changing the weather, or saving the third world from flooding, draught, and climate change was never a serious goal –just a slogan on a banner. The organizers were disappointed in the end result but they were not defeated. They live to fight another day, and they certainly will fight another day; bet on it.
More of this cold weather in the northern hemisphere, and in particular the US, and the US might, just might have a real crisis on its hands – freezing. I wonder if the US citizens are wise enough to realise they are suffering some of the coldest weather in history, and asking the question what global warming, are you out of your mind President Obama? Or are they brainless as ever and still believe in a rapid rises in temperatures to be followed by global warming catastrophe?
Articles are being prepared as we sleep about how “rotten the ic…er…snow has become”. And how much more “violent the hurri…er…snow storms have risen to”, all due to CO2. Courtesy RC. That’s why the site is down. It takes awhile to wordfind “ice” and “hurricanes” so that the articles can be resubmitted. In the biz, we call those “reconstituted papers”. Same data, different spin.
A picture is worth a thousand words:
http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2009/12/19/us/20091219-winterstorm_index.html
Surely the talks have therefore been a success?
“anyone who challenges the AGW assertion is treated as though they were advocating wife beating, so they stay silent on the issue.” — correct geronimo.
With all the “positives” Obama promised, he conditioned them with the phrase, “consistant with science”. Has climategate caused him to have some doubts about his appointed economic, energy, and environmental science advisors? Hopefully, there will be some positive changes.
“Failure?” I hope so. This could also be an incremental step towards eventually getting what they want.