From Physorg.com
Full story at Physorg
US panel votes to bar climate funding.
h/t to Leif Svalgaard
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
From Physorg.com
Full story at Physorg
US panel votes to bar climate funding.
h/t to Leif Svalgaard
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
What’s the amount involved? $2.98?
Read this and weep US readers, commitments apparently made at Copenhagen and Cancun.
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/151381.pdf
This link I found while looking for other countries commitments, as Australia had signed the Fast Start Financing Fund for $599million AUD at Copenhagen and ratified it at Cancun.
pat says:
July 21, 2011 at 10:30 pm
“Does anyone here. And I am assuming all of you have some relation to science, believe that Obama has even taken a science course? He seems barely literate.”
Don’t be silly, pat. Of course he’s had a science class. He’s also had geography. How else could he plan to campaign in all 57 states?
the money of the US taxpayer is being used to propaganda, to buy minds and corrupt politicians to approve laws to buy wind farms and give profits to EU… Must be cutted in the name of american welfare. Well done!
Wow! an independent Congress. Good news for common sense.
“Gerry Connolly, a Democrat from Virginia, likened the Republican effort to the 1925 Scopes monkey trial in which a Tennessee teacher was taken to court for teaching evolution.”
The guy seems confused. He can’t possibly be referring to the panel vote. Perhaps he needs a vacation.
It’s hard to see how the continued shakedown of the West, based on faulty and even fraudulent “science” can be compared to the Scopes trial.
I’m from one of those poor nations that is suffering from the invisible effects of global warming. We are making commitments by the zillion in the expectation that someone will pick up the tab, ‘cos that’s what someone apparently offered to do at Copenhagen – and repeated at Cancun. You tell me that the ‘someone’ no longer exists? Say it louder, please before our own politicians run up excessive debts. In my business, I never commit until the ink is dry on the paper. Right now, the warmists are still arguing about what to put on the paper, and Old Nick – sorry, Lord Stern – is dashing around telling everyone to panic.
Climate Change is a serious international commons issue. I’d love to know how this latest move from one of the US’ major political institutions is supposed to help address it.
Serious issue, serious question. But I guess WUWT just isn’t the forum for it. I’d be very happy for you guys to prove me wrong on that though.
I really wish the UK Government would have the guts to up and say something similar to the politicians in the states. Gas & Electricity charges are rising @ur momisugly 18% this year, One of the stated reasons is thet the CERT legilslation levied by Gov’t to fund the carbon myth is up 11% on 2010.
Madness, sheer madness. Unless the funds are being raised and going elsewhere, MP’s expenses maybe.
Thomas Fuller says:
July 21, 2011 at 5:13 pm
I know I’ll be among the few to object to this, but I object to this. I think we should be helping poor countries leapfrog energy technologies the way we helped them leapfrog communications technologies.
It doesn’t necessarily mean spending our tax dollars to build wasteful windmills (although there would probably be some of that, sadly). But guaranteeing loans for natural gas plants or clean coal plants to bring electricity to people who have never had access? I’m very much in favor of it.
But then, I’m a librul Democrat…
————————————————————
I have no problem with private charities buying and sending needy people some of our extra beef and corn but, I watched many of the leaders in foreign countries DEMAND we give them money. Our government has no money of its own. Our government must take it from U S taxpayers at gunpoint. Many of the citizens of the United States of America do not like our government robbing us to provide RULERS money to buy powerful weapons and ever bigger mansions. Until the despots in these third world backward countries establish a rule of law the only thing coming from sending them money is more starvation and murder of their poor. People in poorer countries need to learn to grow and properly handle food. Having clean water and a sanitary method of waste disposal are required. Laws protecting private property must be enforced.
Money is the least of their problems. They need technology. They need lots of cheap ENERGY and a way to use it safely and securely.
If you want them to have money you can send them your personal check.
Send as much as you like….of your money.
To Ric above, reading inthe press over here (which is actuallyquite good withrespectto Climategate, etc., even the pro-AGW Guardian published a long series inFweb. 2010), esp. in answer to your question about US monies, UEA-UK seems to have been getting something in the order ofthelower 5 figures pounds sterling per annum from US D. Energy, some figures were being published as those funds were put on hold last year (unclear about the reason), this was for payments being made in y 2110. There is some mutuality for UEA-CRU also in the exchange of NOAA psot-docs (see early 1990’s candidates listed online for example fomtaht post-doc web-page that comes up usually around Sept. at least, before the Dec. submission deadline, host-hostee institutions are often switched also on a bi-annual basis, to circumvent ‘insider trading’ ethical requirements, a not unexpected pattern). So in essence, there is a conflict ofinterest inmoney terms between supposedly independent institutions for whatwould be termed collusion in civil court terminology. This seems to be SOP with these people, I am afraid.
H.R. says:
July 22, 2011 at 3:53 am
Don’t be silly, pat. Of course he’s had a science class. He’s also had geography. How else could he plan to campaign in all 57 states?
===================================================================
58………
He said he had been to 57, with one more to go
Why is it that every time the western world “has to” aid the developing world it has to be restricted to giving monetary fund for the developing world to buy new and approved super expensive, already subsidized and less effective, technology from the western world?
When the World Bank and EU accepted African countries use the indirect subsidies to western world companies called loans also known as “aid”, to use for building coal fired power plants (which they had to work their collective butts off to make happen) instead of just wind and solar, the African countries have to buy the newest most expensive designs. So, essentially, instead of being able to afford to build three plants they can only afford to build one “green and approved” one, and that’s apparently sane. Not only that but they still have to build wind and solar which, of course, incidentally requires the same amount of MW installed capacity by a coal power plant. Which concludes to that by total installed capacity they’ll be able to “service” millions, but in reality not even a couple of hundred of thousands.
That’s what the crazed climate communist hippies thinks is being kind to the African people when the only ones earning are the “green” tech, already subsidized, companies of the western world.
I say let the developing countries for once actually develop themselves into industrious nations.
Let me offer my total support to your statement Dandy. The so called developing world will never develop as long as the west treats it as a collective of street people who can only survive on alms. Alms that are hugely expensive to the recipient while benefiting just a few of the donors.
Remember, and remember well, charity is always about the giver and never the recipient.
Africa in particular is in an infinitely worse condition today than it was under colonial rule. Even the Congo , which was run by a cruel and extractive colonial power, is worse off today in every way imaginable except for a small ruling clique at the top and a small army of aid practitioners trying to implement their ideas in social and economic engineering.
For as long as Africa can make the west feel guilty for their success there will never be any need for development because the aid simply protects the leadership from the catastrophe they create.
The crisis is the attempt by politicians to grab power and tax dollars to save a planet that does not need saving while imposing restrictions on freedom, transportation and energy use.
I think we need longer days and shorter summers too Jay; do you think you or the ‘major political institutions’ could do anything about the day’s length or shorter summers?
.
Jay says:
July 22, 2011 at 5:59 am
Climate Change is a serious international commons issue. I’d love to know how this latest move from one of the US’ major political institutions is supposed to help address it.
Serious issue, serious question. But I guess WUWT just isn’t the forum for it. I’d be very happy for you guys to prove me wrong on that though.
Large, mutant space hamsters are a serious interstellar commons issue, yet somehow Congress hasn’t paid any attention to it. Instead, they’re worrying about stupid things like needing to raise the debt ceiling by Aug. 2, or risk defaulting, and lowering the national debt, which is over $14 Trillion now.
Seriously though, climate change is only a serious “issue” for True Believers. Equal time for Space Hamsters, though.
Warren says:
July 21, 2011 at 8:14 pm
All that happened was that the camps grew larger, more people kept arriving, one camp I worked at was 20 years old, we had adults who had been born there, and knew nothing of their parents way of life, and were now conditioned to waiting for supplies from us to survive, despite several years of rainfall, good pasture etc.
This has happened time and time again around the world with disastrous results. When you intervene, you own the results. Today’s refugees are the parents and grandparents of tomorrows soldiers and terrorists.
When you feed starving people you do two things. You bankrupt the local farmers who cannot compete with “free” food. You create many more starving people next year. Both these groups of people will ultimately blame you for creating a worse problem than what they had originally.
If people are starving they have a motivation to replace the corrupt government that most likely caused the problem to account. When we provide aid, we are propping up these governments, allowing them to remain in power when their people would have removed them.
In effect, by proving “aid” we undercut the human struggle for freedom, and make our own future less secure. Our own freedom was won at great cost by the previous generations. As happened with the fall of the Roman empire, this is now at risk not from our enemies, but from financial corruption within.
Governments were not responsible for countries jumping directly to cellular telephones, bypassing land-line technologies. This was done by the market. Innovation driven by the desire for profits as opposed to corruption driven by the desire for profits as too often happens when governments become involved.
At least you are honest. But regardless of our political persuasion, we have to accept the fact that we are broke. Giving when there is money to give is one thing. Giving at the expense of your own citizens is insanity.
pat says: @ur momisugly July 21, 2011 at 10:30 pm
“Does anyone here. And I am assuming all of you have some relation to science, believe that Obama has even taken a science course? He seems barely literate.”
That does not bother me but what is crucial is that Steven Chu (Energy Secretary) begins to see what is going on and speak out with regard to what most of us here believe is bad science, and begins to distance himself to his prior position on AGW. It’s his job to have the science down, then to advise the president and to exhibit the wisdom to spot and report scams when they appear. Unfortunately he will have to do an abrupt U-turn as his prior background stance, before assuming his current appointment, is thus: “He is a vocal advocate ,………, arguing that a shift away from fossil fuels is essential to combating climate change.”
Shame on him for not speaking up as he certainly is well versed in the scientific method, and is required to be aware what has happened and chronicled in the last couple years with regard to climate science; but guess the comfort and prestige in his newfound position is more important than courageous adherence to good science. Unfortunately this behavior certainly fits well in the pattern of Nobel laureates recently selected.
We shouldn’t give any money to academics in rich countries who are behind promoting global warming. UK comes to mind.
The referenced article (U.S. Panel votes to bar climate funding) identifies the source of the Cancun COP’s claim on the developed world’s assets:
Mrs. Margaret Mukahanana-Sangarwe (Chair). 2010. Possible elements of the outcome. (Cancun). Note by the Chair. Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention. Cancun, Mexico: IPCC, November 29. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/awglca13/eng/crp02.pdf
Agenda item 3: Preparation of an outcome to be presented to the Conference of the Parties for adoption at its sixteenth session to enable the full, effective and sustained implementation of the Convention through long-term cooperative action now, up to and beyond 2012. Page 16: IV. Finance, technology and capacity-building. A. Finance
Scaled up, new and additional, predictable and adequate funding shall be provided to developing country Parties;
• Option 1: Developed country Parties commit, in the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation, to a goal of mobilizing jointly USD 100 billion dollars per year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries;
Option 2 (dropped): Developed country Parties and other parties included in Annex II to the Convention commit to provide 1.5% of their GDP per year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries;
Where is Mrs. Mukahanana-Sangarwe from? Zimbabwe, the president of which is President Robert Mugabe, the head of State and Commander in Chief of the armed forces. Mugabe has been in power since the country’s long war for independence. Gleanings from Wikipedia:
“It has been estimated that at least 20,000 Matabele were murdered and tens of thousands of others were tortured in camps such as the Valagwe camp, where 2-3000 people could be detained for torture and interrogation at any one time.”
“The downward spiral of the economy has been attributed mainly to mismanagement and corruption of the Mugabe regime and the eviction of more than 4,000 white farmers in the controversial land redistribution of 2000.”
Michael Klein says:
July 21, 2011 at 6:22 pm
“This is a real shame. Let’s hope Obama can restore funding. Developing nations deserve help with climate change, and as the richest country in the world, we have a responsibility to help.”
When you say “Let’s”, are you referring to the majority of those in here (and out there) who are saying “let’s not”? Deserve help with climate change? And who determines what 1) the effects of that climate change are and 2) how much that costs? Are we to send troops of overpaid “researchers” into some area to tell the bewildered local populace that they are about to get helped? Like the example in Sudan cited above, “Let’s help these people lose their identity and their dignity”. Responsibility? Is that your excuse for feeling good? That you have to impose your “cure” on everyone else? Do you get out much and see the effects of this “climate change”? Sorry, Skipper, try again. Your ship is stuck on the bleached coral of your narrow viewpoint.
Can we also stop funding NASA for ‘Muslim outreach’ activities, or is that now their core mission?
Michael Klein [July 21, 2011 at 6:22 pm] says:
This is a real shame. Let’s hope Obama can restore funding. Developing nations deserve help with climate change, and as the richest country in the world, we have a responsibility to help.”
aaayy mike:
while you’re at it why don’t you do some work in attempting aeronautical seductions at ambulatory torides.
let us know how that goes??
C
Believe me. That money will never get down to the ‘poor people’ in ‘underdeveloped countries’. It will go to fund air conditioning and such in the president’s palace, if it is used for climate at all. this reminds me of the time Oprah Winfrey donated some million dollars to fight illiteracy in America. It was sucked up by ‘studies’ and nothing made it to the people it was intended to aid at all. Underdeveloped countries have long had technologies available to them cheaply such as methane from waste and solar. Climate change is not caused by poor people in small countries. It is caused by massive changes such as cutting down the rainforests and planting huge palm plantations – which take big money to accomplish. The problem isn’t the little guy with no money, it is the big guy with lots of money and giving him even more money is not going to help anyone at all.