I went to a fight the other night, and a hockey game broke out.
-Rodney Dangerfield (1921 – 2004)
…not surprisingly, the United Nations’ 2010 Climate Change Conference in Cancun, Mexico, is failing, with Mother Nature helping to dampen warming fears as an early winter sets in across the Northern Hemisphere.
Some commentators tell us that this is the beginning of the end of the climate scare. More likely, it is just the end of the beginning. If this were a hockey game, the first period would have just ended with a couple of quick goals by climate realists.
But alarmists built up a 5-0 lead while realists were still learning to play. The score is now 5-2, with most of the game yet to go. While it is appropriate for realists to revel in their late-period success, it is vastly premature to celebrate.
Through the tireless work of hundreds of thousands of mostly unpaid activists, aided by unquestioning journalists, grant-seeking scientists, pandering politicians, opportunistic or naive industries and well-meaning but misinformed citizens, climate campaigners made “stopping global warming” a cause celebre. The warmists’ message was pounded out, free of charge, daily for years: “We in the West are causing a planetary emergency and the poor of the world are the primary victims.” Celebrities, leading scientists and charismatic mega-fauna such as the polar bear were recruited as the faces of responsible environmental stewardship.
As a result, massive donations from left-wing foundations poured in to groups focused on promoting alarm. With unprecedented resources at their disposal, climate campaigners hired communications and legal exerts to help craft long-term, often ruthless strategies to sway public opinion and frighten industry away from effectively defending itself. Meanwhile, throughout the 1980s and ’90s, nature cooperated. Global warming, later to become “climate change,” was ready for prime time.
==============================================================
The entire essay from “Harris and Leyland” gives a great historical perspective. Read it in the Washington Times here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
jmrSudbury says:
December 11, 2010 at 11:48 am
“And yet a legally binding deal was struck.”
UN proclamations aren’t legally binding. If they were Iran and North Korea wouldn’t be enriching uranium for bombs, there wouldn’t be any violence in the Middle East, in fact there wouldn’t be any wars at all, and so forth. The United Nations has no power to compel members to do a damn thing. It makes resolutions which it can neither impose nor enforce.
Mike Roddy says:
December 11, 2010 at 8:34 am
Thank God for the climate realists:
I assume it’s small, Mike. Very small, maybe lost, definitely never used, can you find it with your own hand?…. For you to promote such a blatant wackjob.
How much are you being slipped Mike? To be an intellectual whore?
Not enough, would be my bet.
Any deal the US representative signs onto must first pass two things BEFORE it becomes legally binding on the US Government.
1. The US President has to sign it.
2. The Senate has to Ok it.
Since so far neither of those things have happened that deal is not binding on the US and since I highly doubt the incoming next Senate will commit political suicide confirming it, it has the value slightly greater then used toilet paper.
Just to be clear, the person representing the U.S. at Cancun is Todd Stern.
Stern is pretty much a nobody in government. A USFS Special Envoy appointed by Hillary Clinton. All high ranking members of the United States Foreign Service are appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the senate. Lower down in the USFS rank structure are presidential appointments which do not require senate consent and at the bottom of the barrel are USFS specialists appointed by the Secretary of State. Stern is a specialist.
Ambassadors, even the big Kahuna the president of the United States, has no power to enter into binding agreements with foreign governments. That is the exclusive domain of the United States Senate.
By the way, Stern was the USFS special envoy sent to negotiate the Kyoto Protocol. His batting record so far is a perfect zero in one time at bat insomuch as making any agreements which the Senate chose to ratify. I’ll bet dollars against donuts the Senate won’t back him this time either. Think of him as the designated payer of US lip service.
you can’t rhyme whim, paradigm and him. The I in paradigm is strong as in eye not soft as fist
For further clarity for those not familiar with the makeup of the U.S. Senate power is NOT apportioned by population but rather is granted exactly equally among all
5750 states such that those pesky red “fly-over” states with their small and very conservative populations, states like Oklahoma and Kansas, North and South Dakota, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, and even Alaska (which technically isn’t even flown-over by left and right coast liberals) has exactly equal power in the US Senate as does California and New York.Adding insult to injury, absent a 60% Senate majority vote to stop what’s called a “filibuster” any individual Senator can stop the Senate from performing any business at all for as long as he can keep talking because, you see, there are no time limits imposed on how long a US Senator can speak once recognized to speak.
In November 2010 a modestly more clear-thinking US electorate took away the Democratic 60-vote majority who might have been able to ratify some of less vexing promises made by the Foreign Service in Cancun. Now there’s not a prayer of it. It won’t even make it out of special committee for a vote before the full senate. The Cancun resolution to make a resolution is DOA in the United States.
‘Sam Hall says:
December 11, 2010 at 12:57 pm
You don’t seem to have a clue what net neutrality is about. It is about ISP’s controlling different types of traffic on their networks. Can cable block streaming video or not is the question. If the FCC makes net neutrality the law, then they can’t. If not, they can.’
That not the right question. Is the FCC allowed to make guidelines, rules and regulations about the Internet thought the cable outlets is the right question? Both Congress and the Courts have said NO. The FCC does not have the power to regulate cable.
I don’t hate you, Anthony. In fact, next time I’m in San Francisco (my home town) I’ll email here and offer to buy you a drink, so we can talk off the record. I doubt if we’ll end up agreeing on much, but certainly we can learn from each other.
I stand by my jellyfish comment, btw, since their numbers are increasing and the ocean is acidifying.
REPLY: Your commentary is indeed hateful, but more importantly, libelously false. You didn’t ask any questions, or inquire about the surfacesations project, as a journalist would, so you don’t know what the status is. It’s really a mega fail on your part, and you did this because your hatred of me, this website and what I do. This won’t let you ask honest questions, but rather, causes you to rely on your feelings to write commentary.
If you are interested in demonstrating that your intent is to be factually based rather than emotional, will you print a correction if I offer it? -Anthony
Further to Dave’s comments about the Senate, treaty ratification requires a 2/3 (67/100) hyper-majority.
Not a prayer. Unless this is considered “not a treaty”. I think O’s “other way to skin the cat” is to piecemeal it into place with agency regulations, and other sleight-of-hand, like the whole EPA farce. Don’t know how far he’ll get with it. IAC, all money matters must originate in the House, and that’s stacked hard against him.
Hoser says:
Let’s be honest: How much longer will blogs like this be allowed to scare people and make them not trust the government?
————————————————————————————————-
Funny that your handle in Canadianspeak is synonymous with “Douche”
There’s enough Ph. D’s posting on this blog to create a University or 5.
dwright
I’m curious where people get their ideas regarding the function of the US government. It’s not as if the US Constitution and subsequent amendments aren’t online. It is not a complicated document and ther e are not enough amendments to prevent a complete read in an hour. Yet, even journalists fall for the mis-information in print.
Mark
David Cameron today: “”The Cancun agreement is a very significant step forward in renewing the determination of the international community to tackle climate change through multilateral action.”
Which translates to ” Well done Chris Huhne. You have kept this scam on the road long enough for my father-in-law to complete his investment in a substantial wind farm, thus ensuring a guaranteed transfer of monies from the UK taxpayer to the Cameron trust funds for 25 years”.
“We’re all in this together” is his catch phrase, but it seems that some, including the fuel poor pensioners, terrified of the bills that this winter wil bring, are more in it than others.
Mike:
No ocean is ‘acidifying’ and to repeat the lie is silly. By Grade 8 even the ordinary under-educated American knows that if is it above 7.0 it is alkaline. ‘Acidifying oceans’ is the bluntest meme in the CAGW quiver of pot-shot arrows.
I see no reason for Anthony (or anyone else) to deal with you respectfully while you have an unsqeezed pimple on your sophomoric website crafted to insult a widely respected member of the climate research community. Leave highschool behind. To show up here to advertise science porn takes the sort of gall one only sees from the likes of Hockey Stick creators. Surely you do not want to be considered to be of that ilk, even briefly.
Clean up your site then come back and talk nicely.
Mike, I just cannot understand how you can say those things about Anthony when his ENTIRE purpose of the surfacestation project was to ensure that the surface stations were generating the highest quality data possible. If NOAA fixes just ONE station as a result of Anthony’s project (which BTW, they HAVE!), the mission is accomplished. The data is better. How in the hell is that deserving of one of your “awards.”
And it’s pretty clear you know nothing about the project, and that NOAA answered a question no one asked in their little “report”…I mean, hit piece…
Dear dwrong,
I like ‘Hoser’ because it is slightly vulgar. The nickname was given to me by an old friend who is now a very highly respected cancer researcher in Canada. Nobody should take themselves too seriously, my friend.
Clearly, you took a comment out of context and fumbled trying to make a point. Just what was your point? You never mentioned anything about the substance of what I posted.
I must assume you A) didn’t agree with what I said, or B) you didn’t understand it. Then do you like freedom, or do you oppose it? Do you like government control over your life, or do you oppose that? Would you enjoy having government monitor everything you do in your home, read your emails sent via a government network, have your computer hard disk hacked by anyone able to access the Home Area Network created by smart grid (see http://www.howstuffworks.com/power-network.htm/printable, and http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=R3-rAAAAEBAJ&dq=intellon+computer+power+supply).
Anyone who thinks their encryption will stop a skilled hacker is naive. Hacker tools are available online (for example, see http://md5crack.com/). Governments can quietly access anything they like on your computer whenever they choose via smart grid. Don’t imagine that a warrant is needed.
And, isn’t it more than likely the Assange case is a setup to justify cracking down on the wild internet? A bit like burning the Reichstag. Future restrictions are necessary for national security requirements, of course. The regime in power seems to like the Chinese model. Who actually believes a single private first class actually could access such sensitive materials alone?
Just to be clear: The new networking computer power supply, as described in the patent (see link in previous post), accesses the Home Area Network via the power cord. These units are already being sold in Europe, and are coming here no doubt. Utilities want to sell broadband services. Big companies like CISCO, Motorola, and IBM are very interested. Governments and others will be able to access the disk via the power cord through this type of power supply. No ethernet cable required.
Your current computer power supply almost certainly does not have this capability. Not yet. We can expect these power supplies will be the standard type sold in new computers in the coming years.
Well, I think this is not a good example for young children. And violence should not be tolerated in this kind of sport… Many kids really love this sport… This is very frustrating. 🙂