U.N. Climate Chief Resigns

From the New York Times

By JOHN M. BRODER

The UN's climate change chief Yvo de Boer shows signs of fatigue at a press conference in Copenhagen in December.

The UN's climate change chief Yvo de Boer shows signs of fatigue at a press conference in Copenhagen in December. (Reuters)

WASHINGTON — Yvo de Boer, the stolid Dutch bureaucrat who led the international climate change negotiations over four tumultuous years, is resigning his post as of July 1, the United Nations said on Thursday.

In a statement announcing his departure, Mr. de Boer expressed disappointment that the December climate change conference of nearly 200 nations in Copenhagen had failed to produce an enforceable agreement to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases that climate scientists say are contributing to the warming of the planet.

He also said that governmental negotiations could provide a framework for action on climate, but that the solutions must come from the businesses that produce and consume the fuels that add to global warming.

“Copenhagen did not provide us with a clear agreement in legal terms, but the political commitment and sense of direction toward a low-emissions world are overwhelming,” said Mr. de Boer, whose formal title is executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. “This calls for new partnerships with the business sector, and I now have the chance to help make this happen.”

Mr. de Boer, 55, will join the consulting group KPMG as global adviser on climate and sustainability and will also work in academia, his office said.

Complete story in the New York Times

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Global Warming Borg

Oh man! He thought he was going to be King of the World.
Government by academia will never work.

Gordon Ford

Brings to mind something about rats and ships. This is likely the first to see the light.

Carl Hult

When I first read this I thought it was Pachauri who was going and was glad. This, however, is not who I thought. I can’t even remind myself hearing his name before.
Is this of interest? It is called Czechgate by the one who wrote it:
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/203117-Czechgate-Climate-scientists-dump-world-s-second-oldest-cold-climate-record

Doug in Seattle

One down, but way too many ready to take his place. But a small victory perhaps. Is Patchy next?

PaulH

The wall is tumbling down, and the clouds are clearing.

oakgeo

“enforceable agreement”
Leaves a cold pit in my stomach. He’s disappointed that Copenhagen failed to create a supra-national body with enforceable agreements led by bureaucrats… frankly I think we dodged a bullet.

I would love to see your counter arguments to these:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
And why not a counter i-phone app?

Mark_K

The funny thing is that a low(er)-emissions world is a laudable goal on its own merit. Had they concentrated on doing that in practical, efficient, and economical ways, instead of trying to use AGW hyperbole to scare us to death, so they could carbon tax us to death, they would be much farther ahead today.

Frederick Davies

“…Mr. de Boer, 55, will join the consulting group KPMG as global adviser on climate and sustainability…”
Nothing like a good revolving door arrangement.

Carlo

Bye bye, the fool told us on Dutch television we have to pay a lot more taxes on the strawberry’s and meat because of the climate chance.

JonesII

Just fleeing out from the sinking ship…

Stephan

bet there will no replacement

kim

And another one goes, and another one goes.
===========================

Ack

Algore to be named his replacement?

Charles. U. Farley

Cant be just me that sees DeBoer as a somewhat sleazy, backroom in the shadows stringpuller whos too afraid of getting messy to do his own dirty work?
Just the image i get whenever i see him or hear of him….probably a very very very very nice man………

Dorian Sabaz

Beware this could still turn into a pyrrhic victory.
This Beast, that is the UN Climate committee, is not single headed, but is a pernicious, nefarious, conniving, mendacious, megalomaniac hydra!
This is barely the beginning, evil (and that is what this whole climate religion is) is not so easily defeated.
This Dark Science will not stop until all its evil doers are exposed.
There is a long, long way to go. One hydra head gone, many thousands to go!

Sierra Sam

Dear Mario:
I scanned all 90 rebuttals of your reference. Those many I read were ALL counter to the science published in this site and others.

Frederick Davies (07:09:40) :
“…Mr. de Boer, 55, will join the consulting group KPMG as global adviser on climate and sustainability…”
Nothing like a good revolving door arrangement.
Only benefits of KPMG partnership ….

UK Sceptic

Okay, one down but the chief rat is still in the silo and stuffing as much grain into his mouth as he can…

geronimo

Mario, it is a distraction, nothing unusual is happening, seas have always risen and fallen, ice has come and gone, glaciers have advanced and receded, that things are changing is not in itself interesting. The core to all this, is can anyone define a relationship between CO2 and temperature that can give us warming to the extent the alarmists say. Answer no. Has CO2 demonstrated any relationship with global temperatures in the past.; Answer yes, the CO2 in the atmosphere has risen around 800 years after a temperature rise.
Until the alarmists can get a predictable, measurable and observable relationship between CO2 there is no science, it’s soothsaying.
Back OT, it may be a confluence of events that’s given rise to de Boer’s decision to go. For sure there was an annex giving bureaucrats the rights to tell sovereign countries how their markets could operate and enforcing the agreement that was pulled. This wouldn’t have been a disaster, but for climategate, which wouldn’t have been a disaster except for glaciergate, and with other “gates” following one on the heels of another, and the fact that the next IPCC report will undoubtedley be more circumspect and less dramatic than the last, he’s probably figured out the game is up and took the door to another career.

Henry chance

Oh noes. Just when we need his valiant endeavers the most only moments before the TIPPING point.
We will see a lot of hand wringing and anxiety.
It is slowly getting good for the popcorn industry.

Mario:
When you can understand the work of Elsasser…
When you can write out the classic layered atmopshere radation exchange equations.
When you can explain WHY Elsassers work, showing CO2 to be an equal upflux and downflux agent to 30,000 feet, and Plass’s work showing the COOLING contribution of CO2 in the stratosphere, then I’ll listen to your TROLL work.

Baa Humbug

Don’t underestimate this. Yves De Boer is a bigger fish than Pachauri, much bigger. I feel like singing this.
Pachauri is contemplating his future with this music playing in the background

Looks to me like he’s off to make some money from “Climate Change” before the game’s up

Douglas DC

Sell any green energy stocks-now….

Russ Blake

Sort of reminds me of the ever-present insurance commercials on US television-
” And we’re walking, we’re walking, we’re walking.”

Tenuc

Interesting to see one of the BIG rats deserting the sinking ship of CAGW.
One of his major previous roles was that of member of the Community Development Carbon Fund of the World Bank. I think he’ll fit in well at LPMG, who are engulfed in a sub-prime accounting scandal:-
“An independent report commissioned by the Justice Department concluded that the “improper and imprudent practices” of now-bankrupt sub-prime lender New Century Financial were condoned and enabled by the company’s independent auditor, KPMG.

Henry chance

He is joining a global CPA firm as a consultant. He is NOT a CPA and can’t be a partner.
Of course CPA’s can become rotten and get indictments. His forte was carbon trading schemes and accountants have more than once given illegal advice for investing. My headquarters for my company exercised a real estate option and took over space from a firm that was over active in tax shelters.
Just follow the money. He is.

Rhys Jaggar

‘Douglas DC (08:04:41) :
Sell any green energy stocks-now….’
I disagree: if the green energy technology is good, you don’t need global warming to back it. If it’s useless, then sure: sell it. But that begs the question: why did you buy it in the first place??
Surely you’re not so naughty as to hype stocks whilst decrying global warming?? Tut tut!!!!!

Henry chance

Cry baby
Use of tears works when the science sux

The crying Dutchman: Emotion overwhelms Yvo de Boer
Moments earlier, Mr de Boer had been warning delegates that failure to reach an agreement on global warming could “plunge the world into conflict”.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-502563/Floods-tears-climate-change-hard-man-breaks-summit.html#ixzz0fuEYYpMQ
Drama queen. Romm uses anger, hate and outrage. Algore uses rants.

MattN

Rats.
Sinking ship.

Mike Ramsey

Mario Nelson (07:03:57) :
I would love to see your counter arguments to these:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Was your reference written by a child?
“It’s the sun” “In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions.”
“However, after 1975, temperatures rose while solar activity showed little to no long term trend. ”
We just completed a solar grand maximum (1950-2004, with cycle 23 peaking in 2000). http://www.springerlink.com/content/m0315745464522g8/ 
A solar cooling trend for the last 35 years? That is not even wrong.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong 
At this point, I stopped reading your so called reference.
Mike Ramsey

Isn’t he the same guy who said Pachauri would be a fool to resign?

Kate

These are interesting statements:
Mark Lynas, a climate change consultant who advised the President of the Maldives during the UN negotiations, said many in developing countries are still angry at the failure of Copenhagen. He said the resignation of Mr de Boer showed how much strain the international negotiations are under.
“It is quite bad news he is quitting at this point because the world is in desperate need for a reliable pair of hands to get through this dark period where climate change negotiations are under assault from anti-science deniers, by the Climategate furore and by the US Senate. I think he is very likely to be going because he has had enough. Because the whole process is unraveling at this point.”
However Ed Miliband, the Energy and Climate Change, insisted the negotiations were still on track.
***************************************************************************
Notice how Milliamp has now become a real denier -a denier of reality. It’s so sad, really.
Mark Lynas was involved in that stunt with the Maldives government having to wear diving suits to hold a cabinet meeting underwater “because of global warming”.
Lynas also refers to “anti-science deniers”, which is exactly how I characterize him and his global warming liars, but then describes the whole global warming lie as “unraveling”. So, he has managed to say something we agree with for once.

Mike Ramsey

I was thinking that if someone put a gun to my head and told me that I had Yvo de Boer’s job would I have gone about it the way that he did?
You cannot motivate on the opposite of an idea.  “Cut CO2” as a slogan just wouldn’t work.  Instead, I would motivate on a positive.  “Go nuclear!”
So why has the AGW crowd chosen such a losing strategy?  Cutting CO2 cannot be the real ends.  What if the means are the ends? 
Redistribute wealth, knock the economies of the west (Europe, the commonwealth countries, Japan, South Korea, and the USA) on their kiesters.
Sounds unfriendly.  War by other means.  Hmmm.
Mike Ramsey

Veronica

I wondered how many comments down the thread we would get before the rats and sinking ships would appear, and the answer was 2. Also, the guy is entitled to go and find a job in the same field, who can blame him.
BUT I also think commenters are right that the world dodged a bullet with Copenhagen. Maybe Dr Bjorn Lomborg will comment on whether scrubbing developing world smokestacks for soot and sulphur would have a more positive payoff than trying to limit CO2 emissions. Those particular pollutants do seem more relevant to the debate, which should be about the quality of the environment, not just whether it matters that the world is getting 0.25C warmer per century.

Kate

To Mario Nelson (07:03:57) :
I would love to see your counter arguments to these:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Counter-arguments at:
http://www.wattsupwiththat.com
http://www.climateaudit.org
http://www.climatedepot.com
That’s just for starters. The word is out. Americans are laughing.

kadaka

Interesting nuances:
…to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases that climate scientists say are contributing to the warming of the planet.
Just a few months ago, would the New York Times have bothered to insert the parts I emphasized? Debate was over, the science was settled. “…to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases that are warming the planet” would have been perfectly acceptable to the editors.
Gee, do you think something happened that made the editors rethink the content they were publishing?
He also said that governmental negotiations could provide a framework for action on climate, but that the solutions must come from the businesses that produce and consume the fuels that add to global warming.
The businesses that witnessed the unabashed capitalism-bashing at Copenhagen, surrounded by activists that wanted them destroyed? Yeah well, good luck with that. You’ll need it to convince those fleeing the unruly hate-fueled mob of the wisdom of stopping to negotiate. Yup, a whole lot of good luck indeed.

ML

he has to be recognized for his work to save the planet.
I suggest tight fit handcuffs

ShrNfr

I continue to want to caption this photo “Oh no, Barrie Harrop just walked in.”

Colin Porter

“Mr. de Boer expressed disappointment that the December climate change conference of nearly 200 nations in Copenhagen had failed to produce an enforceable agreement to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases”
Lord Monkton was accused of being OTT for suggesting that the text of the Copenhagen agreement would be enforceable, but here it is coming from the horses mouth.
Max Hugoson. I think you do Mario an injustice in calling him a troll. I think he is simply saying that he would like to see informed counter arguments to the sceptic argument debunking app, possibly by the sceptic side producing its own app. i.e. An app to debunk the i-Pod sceptical arguments debunking app.

Jim Clarke

Hey Mario,
Several points about your ‘skeptical science’ website and its supposed refutation of global warming skeptics:
1. Never let your enemy state your position. Most of the ‘skeptics arguments’ are a few words, while the ‘what the science says’ rebuttals are a paragraph long! In this way, the website completely mis-characterizes the skeptical argument, making it sound simple and stupid. If the website was really trying to get to the truth, the skeptical arguments would be just as complex as the rebuttals, because that is the reality of the science. It also includes arguments that have been put forth by lay people, not skeptical scientists; an obvious attempt to make skeptics look stupid.
2. The rebuttals are cherry picked. The science that supports the skeptical arguments is ignored. If some aspect of the science is currently in dispute, the website quotes only one side of the dispute and pretends that it is settled science. Very disingenuous.
3. The rebuttals are often self contradictory. For example, one response says that there is no correlation to solar activity and temperature in the late 20th century. Another response says there is a ten year lag in the correlation of temperature to solar activity. One response says there is no observable connection between warming and hurricane activity, while another response says that there is. And so on.
4. The scientific rebuttals are often hand waving. For example, it dismisses the cosmic ray effect because it “has not been proven”! Guess what…the positive feedback of increasing CO2 has also not been proven. In fact, there is more hard evidence for a significant cosmic ray effect than there is for significant positive feedbacks from increasing CO2.
5. The rebuttals are rarely quantified, treating the debate as if it were about warming or no warming. The debate has always been about how much warming will increasing CO2 cause, not if it will cause warming or cooling.
6. The rebuttals are misleading. For example, they state that a part of Antarctica is gaining ice, but the continent as a whole is losing ice. The reality is that the part that is loosing ice is concentrated on the Arctic Peninsula, which is smaller than the part that is ice positive and in a different climate zone than the rest of the continent. The antarctic peninsula warming is hardly indicative of a CO2 warming signature and the peninsula is certainly not representative of the climate over the rest of the continent, but that is the implication put forth by this site.
I could go on and on, describing the seemingly countless ways the author of that site has used manipulation to obfuscate the truth about climate change, but I think I have made my case. In fact, my first point alone is reason enough to discard the website as propaganda.

Reed Coray

To all global warming alarmists, it sounds like “the bell is tolling for thee.”

Peter Miller

As always, it’s probably all about the money.
KPMG is a probably a much better bet as far as a long term future source of funds is concerned.
AGW is starting to unwind, this guy is probably smart enough to not want to be around when it finally unravels.

JonesII

A conspiracy: ” A flock of ducks were flying following its leader. A not well informed duck asked its companion : where are we flying to?, the other duck answered saying: “I don’t know, I just follow the leader”, then, not being satisfied by the answer it flew to the head of the flock and asked the leader: Where are you going?…and it responded: I don’t know, they are just pushing me ahead”

Atomic Hairdryer

Re: Mario Nelson (07:03:57) :
And why not a counter i-phone app?

Because:
Real sceptics don’t use iPhones
Real sceptics don’t need prepacked thoughts. One point about being a sceptic is an ability to think for yourself, rather than simply being told what to believe.

Dr S Jones

He won’t be poor, then.

Tim Clark

political commitment and sense of direction toward a low-emissions world are overwhelming,”
And that’s all AGW alarmism ever was and is.

Jim Clarke (09:43:07)
Excellent points. I’ve been pointing out that the “Skeptical
Science” website is simply a chameleon, trying to capitalize of the superior knowledge and arguments of real scientific skeptics.
Skepticism is an absolute requirement of the scientific method. But alarmist sites like ‘Skeptical Science’ wouldn’t know real skepticism if it bit ’em on the ankle. They sneakily misrepresent themselves, trying to alarm the public through camouflage rather than to do what real skeptics [and the planet itself] have done: falsify the catastrophic AGW hypothesis.
I recall arguments debunking every link posted on that site. John Cook needs to check the WUWT archives, and get educated in real climate science instead of passing off globaloney and being an apologist/enabler for the scientific misconduct exposed in the Climategate emails, where the term denier applies to that blog.
Dishonesty is a hallmark of the AGW crowd. When climate alarmists have to resort to pretending to be skeptics, they have already lost the debate.

Roger Knights

Now that there’s room at the top for ChooChoo, they can kick him upstairs.