From the New York Times
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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“kadaka (09:38:30) :
Interesting nuances:
…to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases that climate scientists say are contributing to the warming of the planet.”
Very good observation! They’re hedging their bets!
Mario Nelson (07:03:57)
I’m not sure I understand why anyone should waste time worrying about what’s said on a site put together by this guy: http://wiki.sev.com.au/About-Us
Maybe I missed the part about how a cartoonist with an undergrad degree in physics and some amount of post-grad study on solar physics (click for ref) is an reliable source for climate science
…but maybe, since “it’s just a simple physics problem” he’s qualified after all
What gets me is that I’m pretty sure I’ve seen that site referenced at RC before
next to the cru whistle blower, he was the single most important person for the failure of kopenhagen I wished he would have stayed.
The extent of the disconnect between political types at the top of the food chain, and the rest of the commons is captured in that statement where de Boer states “but the political commitment and sense of direction toward a low-emissions world are overwhelming,”
This sense of overwhelming direction of which Yvon speaks exists only within their self maintained echo chamber, fed by astroturf “proteters” and rent seeking CEO’s from GE and other wannabe tapeworms.
Perhaps though, his resignation is the result of seeing a chink of light that split the walls of the chamber – only his mouth is still connected to the old cassette tape.
Mark_K (07:04:49) : “The funny thing is that a low(er)-emissions world is a laudable goal on its own merit.”
Well, there’s something to be said for the cheap fossil fuel energy that has brought the world to its highest standard of living in history. Laudable or not, however, the “goal” of lower CO2 emissions will undoubtedly be met, if only because fossil fuels will eventually become more expensive than alternatives like nuclear, solar, etc., which become cheaper as technology advances.
Unfortunately, attempting to summon the future before its time can be very expensive, and not just in monetary terms.
Mario (07:03:57) :
That website uses a classical logical fallacy called a “straw-man argument” i.e. it misrepresents the opposition’s arguments with simplistic and bad points and then demolishes the misrepresentation.
Hmmm… so I tried the WHOIS trick with http://www.co2science.org (a real skeptical site) and they’re hidden. Must be Big Oil!
Speaking of… has anyone else got their checks yet?
Baa Humbug @ur momisugly 7:56:29
“Don’t underestimate this. Yves De Boer is a bigger fish than Pachauri, much bigger. I feel like singing this.”
That’s good…
Or- bit late in the year I know – but how about a round of the “Boer’s Head Carol?”
The UN in their usual stupidity might just appoint that sexy [ yuk! ] Choo Choo Pachauri as de Boer’s successor.
That would really put the finishing touches to this whole great global warming scam.
Mario (07:03:57) :
It isn’t the responsibility of the AGW skeptical community to prove the AGW hypothesis false – it is the responsibility of the warmists to prove the hypothesis true. The hypothesis has not been proven to be true by any stretch of a sane person’s imagination.
Also, anecdotal “evidence” does not support either the side of the argument (for or against the hypothesis of AGW).
For me to accept the hypothesis, the forecasting models based upon the real data (not fabricated, not “adjusted” to fit the conclusion, not cherry picked) can accurately predict the future real temperature of the earth with a reliability of 95% over a minimum of a twenty years. So far the IPCC models have failed miserably over the past decade.
I doubt that the full complexity of the earth’s climate will ever be accurately modelled by humans. I base this belief on personal experience as being a professional forecaster working in the telecommunications industry trying to forecast mundane things such as population, demand for telephone numbers, etc., in an environment where the data series were long and much more accurate than the temperature measurements of the earth.
To re-iterate, it isn’t the responsibility of the skeptics to develop an alternate hypothesis to AGW. It IS the responsibility of the warmists to prove the hypothesis of AGW.
If proof of AGW is so sound, then they wouldn’t be trying to “hide the decline”, losing data, failing to respond to FOIA requests, declining to debate the true science, refusing to share their data so others can test the robustness of their conclusions, etc..
Hugh (12:14:38) :
(…)
Or- bit late in the year I know – but how about a round of the “Boer’s Head Carol?”
Boer’s Head Cheese, popular at the local supermarket deli counter.
Wait, I think I spelled something wrong…
Folks , I don’t think Mario’s a troll . Click his website .
I really would love to put a caption on that photo:
PREVENTIN GLOBULL WARMIN…
…UR DOIN IT WORNG
It seems that even “The Australian” is developing a sort of embryonic scepticism.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/penny-wong-signals-doom-for-iconic-beaches/story-e6frg6n6-1225831970915
woops, forgot to add – It would be good to see Penny Wong dumped as well.
Had great trouble getting into Watts… today from Google. It was acting like it had never heard the website from about 4:40-5:30 or . Outage lasted about an hour. Everything else on Google was fine. — FYI.
So KPMG want’s to take on Goldman….
Give Kevin Rudd the job.
The rest of the world may be breathing a sigh of relief due to the discomforting of the UN/IPCC and the failutre of Copenhagen, but we in the EU are no longer subject to democratic government – the Commissioners (who hopld all the power) are not subect to the voters and can do as they please.
And they are still pushing the AGW-inspired ‘carbon tax’ agenda for all it’s worth. The supra-national ‘World Government’ folk don’t let go that easily.
From my Open Europe newsfeed today:
“European Commission will propose plans for EU wide CO2 tax in April
FT Deutschland reports that the European Commissioner for Taxation, Algirdas Šemeta, will propose plans in April for an EU-wide CO2 tax. The article notes that Brussels officials can be’ stubborn’, as this proposal has suffered several failed attempts in the last two decades. A first draft has been seen by the newspaper, and the article notes that the plans include a revision of existing EU minimum rates of consumer taxes on fossil energy products such as gasoline, fuel oil, gas and electricity. On top of that, a harmonised Europe-wide CO2 tax would be introduced from 2013 onwards. Currently only a few countries have such a tax. Roland Stein, a lawyer with Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, claims in the article that the CO2 tax will lead to more taxes for consumers and companies.
The article adds that the plans will not just serve as climate measures but would, in the longer term, also serve to fund the EU budget directly. The EU needs to reach agreement by 2013 on a new seven-year budget, and Budget Commissioner Janusz Lewandowski aims to provide the EU with direct funds according to the article. An internal Commission paper is quoted, which states that “EU direct financial sources have up till now hardly been linked with EU political objectives”, and the article suggests that EU taxes would try to serve that purpose now”
The original is in the German edition of the Financial Times; I presume it’s correctly translated (my German being 40 years rusty)
http://www.ftd.de/karriere-management/recht-steuern/:recht-steuern-rauch-ueber-bruessel/50075658.html#utm_source=rss2&utm_medium=rss_feed&utm_campaign=/http://www.ftd.de/karriere-management/recht-steuern/:recht-steuern-rauch-ueber-bruessel/50075658.html
Needless to say no-one in the EU has ever voted for such a fundamental change in taxation – nor would they. But they won’t be given the chance!
Evil de Borg has left the building…
Assimilate this!
It will be very interesting to see who, if anyone, replaces the hapless Mr de Boer. Whatever a candidate’s private beliefs, seeing this as a good career move at this point in history requires breathtaking doses of naivete.
“…had failed to produce an enforceable agreement to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases…”
What did he expect when 1) the world’s most populous countries (and biggest polluters) China and India refused to play along, and 2) some of the discussion centered on how much money the “developed” nations had to fork over to the “developing” countries.
Especially when there is no checklist to follow to see exactly when a country should be moved to the “developed” list. China has no desire to ever get off the “developing country” list. Just look what they can get away with by staying on the list.
Gore and The UN IPCC should be forced to give back their Nobel Peace Prize. The flaws in Gore’s film and the errors in the 2007 UN IPCC Report that have been discovered since the award was given should disqualify both parties. Irena Sendler who risked her life daily during World War II to save the lives of over 2,500 Jewish children is much more deserving. Please sign the petition to demand that Gore and the UN IPCC have their award taken away. http://www.stripgore.com
Mario Nelson (07:03:57) : I would love to see your counter arguments to these: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Mario, it’s coming. We just don’t have the money behind us so we are a bit slower and have had to concentrate on actually getting enough of the science right first, as well as coping with AGW “professional” attacks. What http://www.skepticalscience.com have “answered” is a long list of straw men. I used to believe them until I dug deeper. Now I’ve got Skeptical Science taped, ready to deconstruct.
The ongoing problem is that top scientists are still not facing the music. Even if Yvo goes, all the science organizations still support the AGW creed. Therefore we’re building Neutralpedia. Please, real skeptics, come and help.
Meanwhile out in the real world, even the Guardian is now reporting on the actual consequences of international AGW mania, ie millions of Third World starving:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/15/biofuels-food-production-developing-countries