Durban climate conference DOA before it gets started

Newsbytes from Dr. Benny Peiser, The GWPF

Global Warming Policy Foundation

Image via Wikipedia

Europe’s Durban Plan Kaput

Europe’s attempt to formulate a ‘coalition of the willing’ seems doomed. The BASIC countries – China, India, South Africa and Brazil — have already taken a position that any decision on climate change actions beyond 2020 must be based on the next report of UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which will be submitted in 2014, and a review of the fulfilment of commitments under the UN climate convention to be done in 2015. –Nitin Sethi, The Times of India, 15 November 2011

In all likelihood we will see a big change in energy policy and a downgrading of the EU’s ‘20/20/20’ obsession. The targets won’t be changed; they will no longer be taken that seriously. For the first time, the Greens were voted down in the European Parliament, so the mood has changed. The reality is, climate policy isn’t a big agenda item and there are other economic concerns, which are taking higher precedence. This is the attitude and mood swing that I’m witnessing in the UK. –Benny Peiser, Natural Gas Europe, 15 November 2011

For the mechanism of global warming, the IPCC report emphasizes the impact of human activities and the correlation between the CO2 concentration and temperature increase. However, the Earth is a complex dynamic system with various factors affecting each other; great uncertainties exist regarding causes and effects of the climate changes. Therefore, the claims of the IPCC AR4 have been largely questioned. The IPCC report is no longer the most authoritative document on climate changes, as it is restricted by its political tendencies and some errors and flaws. –Fang et al., SCIENCE CHINA, Earth Sciences • October 2011 Vol.54 No.10: 1458–1468

An investigation by the Independent has caught the BBC red-handed selling airtime for millions of pounds. They are trying to spin it as “nominal fees”, but a look at the numbers and content involved is pretty shocking. Perhaps most damning is the fact that a BBC World documentary about climate change was sponsored by green crusaders Envirotrade. And of course  “Envirotrade was featured in a positive light in the programme but viewers were unaware that there was a funding arrangement in place.” So remember that next time you swallow the Beeb’s “the debate is over” climate change line… –Guido Fawkes, Order-Order, 15 November 2011

Spain’s likely new centre-right government plans a major overhaul of the energy sector, possibly axing subsidies for wind and solar power as the euro zone debt crisis makes funding very costly. –Jonathan Gleave, Reuters, 15 November 2011

When the Confederation of British Industry and the big Trade Unions are in policy agreement, it amounts to reliable circumstantial evidence for taking the opposite view. Energy Minister Greg Barker’s decision to cut solar subsidies by 50% is one-nil to the public against the forces of corporatism, the conspiracy of big capital and big labour against the consumer. It was an outrage that the scheme was ever implemented in the first place – with the support of all three main political parties. –Dominic Lawson, The Independent, 15 November 2011

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Hugh Pepper

If the IPCC is “not the most authoritative document on climate changes” as your corespondent claims, then what is? Who else assembles data from around the world and then makes this available to the world’s governments? These are rhetorical questions, because the answers are obvious. No one else is performing this function.

Steve from Rockwood

Funny what happens when countries run out of money.

Caleb

If they are DOA, the next step is zombies. Old zealots never die; they just get hoarse.

Tom Murphy

And then there’s the pitting of environmentalist against environmental in Africa over the issue of biofuel. European nations have been purchasing large amounts of land recently on the continent to meet (ostensibly) the 2020 requirement that 10% of the EU transportation fuel “budget” be supplied via biofuel. Unfortunately and once the land has been purchased, entities from the same European nations displace the native flora and fauna (including humans) in favor of the biofuel crop du jour. And African environmentalists disagree (and rightly so) with the lands’ use for carbon offsets, when humans are offset – http://www.voanews.com/english/news/africa/Biofuel-Investment-in-Africa-Under-Scrutiny-133955018.html .

I think the climate debate as a whole is dying. There’s only the hard core true believers left to carry the Malthusian Luddite banner. In my view, all of the talking points of the alarmists have been adequately addressed. CO2 and temps don’t correlate after all. Ice reduction in the arctic falsified the importance of the albedo effect of the arctic. Turns out, it doesn’t matter. So, there’s no runaway temp doom scenario. The sea-levels aren’t cooperating, and it turns out, tidal gauges and satellite measurements may have been externally manipulated. Hurricanes don’t increase with CO2 or temps, and neither do floods or droughts. Our snow coverage in the northern hemisphere is increasing, not decreasing as the loons originally insisted. Is there any doom and gloom scenario that hasn’t been falsified by reality? Its over.

P Walker

The global economic downturn is assisting governments in realizing that green self loathing and self indulgence is destructively expensive . Unfortunately the greenies don’t realize it . If and when the world gets back on its feet – I fear it won’t be soon – they’ll be back in full force .

Nylo

Spain’s likely new centre-right government plans a major overhaul of the energy sector, possibly axing subsidies for wind and solar power
Don’t hold your breath…

Bessaman

The solution is easy, stop spending money on climate change and instead divert it to environmental programs. That would have a real impact on our quality of life and create real sustainable jobs. Plus we all believe in improving our environment we don’t all believe in the scam that is AGW.

Dave Springer

Of course it is. All this climate control crappola was run up the flagpole in the roaring 90’s when the build out of the global network greased the wheels of industry by revolutionizing end-to-end supply chain management. Few people realize how much more efficient business becomes when every widget or morsel of food that’s purchased off the shelf at Wal-Mart is almost instantly known, without any human intervention, all the way back to every company or farm that had anything to do with it.
Unfortunately that was a one-time gain in productivity and once everyone is doing it then it’s priced into everything and there’s no more huge monetary windfall to be had. In other words these technological advances are like a gold rush and when the gold is gone that’s the end of it until the next big opportunity comes along.
Dipthongs that have little concept of how the world really works, that productivity gains are what drive increases in living standards, thought the “green” revolution was going to be the next technological gold rush. Unfortunately and quite predictably it isn’t because it isn’t something that raises productivity. In fact it lowers productivity because it only makes perfectly serviceable machines and fuels more expensive to own and operate. Something like that can only impede gains in productivity.

higley7

Hugh Pepper said: “Who else assembles data from around the world and then makes this available to the world’s governments? ”
Climate science is the only area of science that has ever been treated in this manner. It’s wrong to have a politically-based panel survey and evaluate a science, as it opens the activity to political bias and agenda-promoting. When we need to know about the state of an aspect of our world, we should get together the experts, have them survey the knowledge, and have them present us with impartial evaluations; this would involve all the leading experts, such that all views would be heard.
Giving the “management” of a field of science to a bureaucracy which was set up from the start to push an agenda is just plain wrong—a huge mistake. We have paid billions for the mistake and now have to undo the damage. The perpetrators of this global crime, which has actually killed people, will probably never be prosecuted, but one can hope.

Bruce Cobb

It seems they’ll be rounding up street beggars beforehand, who have a nasty habit of mugging tourists, thereby sullying Durban’s image. Of course, in the name of “equity”, the “least developed countries” (LDC’s) plan on mugging the developed countries, by claiming they’ve been hit hardest by climate change, with displaced people, which is “placing an inordinate strain on the overburdened infrastructures and service facilities, as well as causing tremendous social stresses.” All the while, still-developing countries like China will continue to claim an exemption, due to the fact that developed countries like the U.S. have had many decades ahead of them where they were spewing huge amounts of “dangerous GHG’s”.
With poor economies everywhere, I suspect the biggest, unspoken agenda will be the tight clutching of wallets, while paying the necessary lip service to the climate change gods.

Dave Springer

P Walker says:
November 16, 2011 at 11:21 am
“The global economic downturn is assisting governments in realizing that green self loathing and self indulgence is destructively expensive . Unfortunately the greenies don’t realize it . If and when the world gets back on its feet – I fear it won’t be soon – they’ll be back in full force .”
Exactly. But it’ll be something else they’re on about instead of CO2. There’s a new and imaginary crisis du jour that is invented whenever there isn’t a real one. Right now there’s a real economic crisis and the imaginary crises take a back seat at these times. Of course that’s presuming that the economic crises ends before the next generation matures. The imaginary crises are pretty much just embraced by young people who haven’t yet learned the difference between real problems and imaginary problems.

higley7

James Sexton said: November 16, 2011 at 11:09 am
“I think the climate debate as a whole is dying.”
It will die slowly, as those rent-seekers (undeveloped countries claiming climate damages), get rich quick scammers (Al Gore & company), and grant-funded global warming “scientists” are not going to go quietly. Instead, they are going to be screaming the dangers of warming ever more shrilly. It is only the facts of the way the world is behaving and our efforts to keep pointing them out to the public that will cause the public to ignore and defund these immoral/dishonest people.

Olen

The Durban climate conference DOA defies all elitists’ logic. Who would have thought people and governments would prefer the energy and economics offered by the 21st century over the 4th century.

Hugh Pepper says:
“If the IPCC is ‘not the most authoritative document on climate changes’ as your corespondent claims, then what is? Who else assembles data from around the world and then makes this available to the world’s governments? These are rhetorical questions, because the answers are obvious. No one else is performing this function.”
Hugh, I am constantly amused by your comments, they’re so completely off the wall. To answer your comment above, top climate scientists like John Christy, Richard Lindzen, Tim Ball and many others collate global data and make it available to governments. And unlike the IPCC’s false propaganda, those scientists are credible. But you claim that no one except the IPCC performs those functions. More comments please, Hugh! They’re so fun ‘n’ easy to deconstruct.☺

richard verney

I fully concur that Durban is dead and I would go further and suggest that it be cancelled so as to save money and for Greens to save unnecessarily incurring substancial CO2 emiisions (surely the Greens would not wish to ‘pollute’ the planet unnecessarily) . A couple of weeks ago, I keft the following comments/observations in response to the Willis Eschenbach
article OCCUPY COP 17–CMP 7 !
richard verney says:
November 3, 2011 at 8:12 am
Nothing will be achieved since the world has run out of capital, and those that have some money such as China are not really interested and have other economic concerns such that they will not lead the way.
This is just going to be an expensive party and spin will be given to the need to take strong and prompt action. They will remain on message but nothing more than that.
AND
richard verney says:
November 4, 2011 at 10:12 am
It appears that the G20 could not agree on anything despite the real and urgent need. Thus, what chance is there that an even bigger group of countries with different agendas will be in a position to agree on anything?
Governments should grow up and recognise that now is not the time to agree on anything of substance in the AGW field and should therefore cancel get togethers of this type which merely waste money which Governments do not have to waste.
In fact those arguing for a reduction in CO2 should be campaigning against holding this conference since it will simply result in a substantial amount of CO2 emissions all for no avail.

DirkH

Hugh Pepper says:
November 16, 2011 at 10:14 am
“If the IPCC is “not the most authoritative document on climate changes” as your corespondent claims, then what is? Who else assembles data from around the world and then makes this available to the world’s governments? These are rhetorical questions, because the answers are obvious. No one else is performing this function.”
The IPCC is an extension of WWF and Greenpeace; insofar its reports are indeed the most authoritative document on the desires of environmental pressure groups.

Wayne Delbeke

One thing the commenter didn’t reference is the closing of the Rio Tinto Alcan smelter in Lynemouth due to rising energy costs. I guess subsidizing wind mills and forcing higher energy rates on everyone has had the inevitable result. The head of Alcan blamed the loss of over 500 jobs squarely on “Energy Policy”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynemouth
Jacynthe Côté, chief executive of Rio Tinto Alcan, said, “This decision follows a thorough strategic review which explored every possible option for continuing to operate the smelter and power station. However, it is clear the smelter is no longer a sustainable business because its energy costs are increasing significantly, due largely to emerging legislation. We are hopeful that the power station can remain in operation under new ownership.
How long before governments come to realize what they are doing? When the greens can no longer get food and clothing or soda cans?

Hugh Davis

Hugh Pepper
Isn’t it time you read “The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert” by Donna Laframboise?

richard verney

@P Walker says:
November 16, 2011 at 11:21 am
The global economic downturn is assisting governments in realizing that green self loathing and self indulgence is destructively expensive . Unfortunately the greenies don’t realize it . If and when the world gets back on its feet – I fear it won’t be soon – they’ll be back in full force .
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
No doubt the Greens would wish to push it once more. However, if it takes 5 to 10 years to get over the present financial problems, there is quite some chance that 2017, 2020, 2023 temperatures will be no higher than today, and possibly even cooler. This may happen due to a change to negative ocean phases with more frequent La Ninas and/or a quiet sun. If that does happen it will mean that temperatures will have flat lined for more than 20 years and it will be very much more difficult to sell the cAGW mantra to the public in these circumstances especially if people have been struggling to pay for fuel due to the financial problems and increasing energy costs. Indeed, some people may well have experienced blackouts/brownouts brought about by over dependency on windfarms that have been unable to meet demand due to the intermitent nature of the wind.
Kicking things in to the rough for 5 to 10 years may therefore be enough to save the world from the cAGW madness. This is the only light at the end of the tunnel emerging from the financial crisis presently facing the West. This crisis has proved that the State cannot afford to pay for all its dreams/wish lists and the State needs in future to be rolled back and to play a smaller role.
I have high hopes that the Greens will be unable to regain their power and influence in a more streamlined world that will emerge from the present financial crisis.

Colin

This “news” is hardly a surprise. Cancun was a bust in 2009 and achieved nothing. The post-Kyoto commitment period that was supposed to be agreed upon died a very ugly, public death in Copenhagen in 2010. And now Europe is confronted with its largest economic crisis since the collapse of the South Seas Bubble, including the possibility of the collapse of the Euro and the outright bankruptcy of at least one EU nation.
As to Hugh Pepper’s claim of IPCC’s “authority”, what he and the rest of the Green Gang would have us overlook is that IPCC stands for Inter Govermental Panel on Climate Change. Government politics and all of the tortuousness of international relations is built into the very name of the organization, let alone its publications.
But fear not, IPCC and the COP conferences are UN organizations. That means they will never die regardless of how irrelevant they become. They will be sustained over the years by whomever feels they are getting the worst of changing global trade and economic development patterns. Mostly that’s the Euro’s, as both the Americas and Asia increase their economic dominance in the decades ahead, as trans-Pacific trade overshadows trans-Atlantic trade. Remember, aside from North-South transfers, the principal goal of Kyoto was always restraint of trade and production in the targeted nations.

higley7

James Sexton says: November 16, 2011 at 11:09 am
“I think the climate debate as a whole is dying.”
This will not go away quietly, as the rent-seekers (undeveloped countries claiming climate damages ), scammers (Al Gore & company), and grant-funded global warming biased research “scientists” will scream ever more shrilly about imminent disasters, accelerating warming, and death. It is only through the real facts of what the planet is doing and how it is behaving and our continued efforts to point these out to the public that the public will begin to totally ignore these dishonest/immoral people and, in time, they will be unfunded/defanged.
I predict we will always have a lunatic fringe out there, just as we have people who believe cell phones can cause brain cancer. We know enough about electromagnetic radiation, energy, and biology to know that cell phone radiation cannot do chemistry, but there will always be those who will still say we really do not know for sure. Do we know anything for sure? In this case we have a sample size of over 5 billion, years of exposure, and the results are essentially zero. Even so, last year Britain entertained the idea of banning cell phones for all children under 18 years of age—better safe than sorry. Then, we need to back track to the invention of fire and ban everything. [The Precautionary Principle brain dead will still say, “But, but, what if the effects do not show up for 20 years?” They will never be happy.]

Vincent

Well if the “delegates” are out for a jolly holiday in Durban, then I wish them luck.
Durban is a hell-hole in December – hot.sticky and humid. Did I mention “overpopulated” (with holidaymakers)?
Apart from the fact that the beaches have been overrun and the place is filthy.
Enjoy – I have to be coerced to go anywhere near the place in December.
Good luck to them.

P Walker

Dave Springer ,
You’re right , of course . I’ve seen it happen too many times . Back in high school (early 70’s ) I took an ecology class and got pretty scared . There were some real problems in those days which got resolved pretty quickly , although at great expense to some industries ; steel , for example . As things improved , the enviros moved on to other things , like baby seals . After that proved to be a hoax , I just passed on the whole thing . When problems are real , I can get behind doing something about them , but I have no time for tree hugging phonies and their imagined crises .

“The BASIC countries – China, India, South Africa and Brazil ”
That’s not an acronym, it’s a mynorca!

chuck nolan

Hugh Davis says:
November 16, 2011 at 12:18 pm
Hugh Pepper
Isn’t it time you read “The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert” by Donna Laframboise?
————————————————————
Hugh, I agree. Hugh great read. Ya gotta do it.

GeologyJim

Hugh Pepper –
For a readable, well-referenced, and comprehensive summary, I recommend “Climate Change Reconsidered” published by the Heartland Institute.
http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2011/pdf/FrontMatter.pdf
Assembled by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), it is a much more thorough and balanced evaluation of the scientific literature. And it’s organized just like the IPCC ARs, so you can compare and contrast. You won’t find any WWF or Greenpeace stuff.

Rosco

When I see what the IPCC has presented “front and centre” in its reports I am simply astounded they still receive funding !
The “Hockey Stick” – even though their previous reports showed warm periods followed by cold periods. Obviously the IPCC had adopted an agenda by this time as there always plenty of historical data to show the “Hockey Stick” was incorrect.
The Energy Budget – I have little idea why this is seen as reasonable – it is clearly deceptive. How does it happen that the solar constant ~1368 W/sq m suddenly becomes ~342 W/sq m insolation ? I know averaging over the sphere of the globe versus the illuminated disk but this is deceptive if you try to calculate the sun’s power to heat the Earth from a low value – it doesn’t reflect reality.
In the ’70s when I went to Uni we were taught that the insolation at the Earth’s surface was ~ 1000 W/sq m in latitudes with the sun overhead on a clear day. Even today you can find NASA pages with references to this.
So why is it now that we have so much deception over this issue ?
Never mind the litany of failed alarmist predictions – sorry “story lines” with confidence ratings – where is ANY reliable data and why, if scientists had any, do they take legal action to defy court orders to supply what is after all publically funded information ?
Until there is some honesty in the field I will continue to believe the theory is wrong – CO2 cannot trap heat – it may alter the pathways but cannot trap it. I am by no means an expert in radiative physics but some of the junk being taught in University simply seems to be junk to me.
If NASA are correct and the sun can heat the moon to ~120 degrees C why can’t it heat the Earth to more than minus 18 degrees C on average.
I don’t believe them – I think they are either deluded or dishonest – I like the double D analogy.

Your tips and notes page takes so long to load I gave up(too many links, u tubes, etc to load) and will post it here!
Climate change episode of Frozen Planet won’t be shown in the U.S. as viewers don’t believe in global warming
Climate change particularly sensitive during presidential race
BBC says Attenborough features heavily on final episode, and he is not famous outside UK
Environment groups brand decision ‘unhelpful’
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 1:46 PM on 15th November 2011
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2061663/Frozen-Planet-Climate-change-episode-wont-shown-US.html#ixzz1duBgf9vh

Hugh Pepper

Highley7 and Smokey: Gentlemen, as you should know, the IPCC collates researched data from hundreds of scientists and agencies around the world. They review research which has been screened in the peer review process. Summaries are then submitted to NAtional Academies of Science in participating countries for a final adjudication. Is this not thorough enough for you? How else would you perform this process? If Lindzen, Christy, and Ball have research they know how to enter the process and their work will add to our collective knowledge.
REPLY: And if it that research doesn’t agree with the consensus position, it is kept out. IPCC does not publish a minority report. I wonder some days, are you under the influence of political money and are you a paid disruptor to constantly spout nonsense here? Or, you are naive. -Anthony

Fred from Canuckistan

When you are up to your armpits in debt, when your economy is in collapse, when salaries are being cut, retirement age being extended, hospitals are closing and general strikes are as common as out of work government lifers, it will be difficult, probably even impossible to give a Flying Fig about Glowball Warming or any other Greenie scheme or scam designed to guilt money out of your pocket.
It is an ex-Ponzi scheme.

JJ

Hugh Pepper says:
If the IPCC is “not the most authoritative document on climate changes” as your corespondent claims, then what is?

My vote goes to the Old Farmer’s Almanac. It is at least as reliable as anything published by the IPCC, and the Astrology chapter is honestly labeled as such.

Gail Combs

Bruce Cobb says:
November 16, 2011 at 11:37 am
It seems they’ll be rounding up street beggars beforehand, who have a nasty habit of mugging tourists, thereby sullying Durban’s image…..
_________________________-
I imagine the smarter ones have gone “Underground” to wait for the big opportunity about to come….
OH, that is right the smarter ones will be ATTENDING the conference.

H.R.

Hugh Pepper says:
November 16, 2011 at 10:14 am
“[…] Who else assembles data from around the world and then makes this available to the world’s governments? […]”
=============================================
Ya’ got a point there, Hugh. They’re so good at it that they can issue the Summary for Policy Makers before the report is written.

Steve from Rockwood

I propose a “Hugh Pepper Award”.
The award for the least aware in a bad drama goes to…

Gail Combs

Wayne Delbeke says:
November 16, 2011 at 12:17 pm
One thing the commenter didn’t reference is the closing of the Rio Tinto Alcan smelter in Lynemouth due to rising energy costs….
How long before governments come to realize what they are doing? When the greens can no longer get food and clothing or soda cans?
_________________________________
Doreen Hannes had a comment on that after the same bunch helped pass a USA law.
LET THEM EAT GRASS http://www.newswithviews.com/Hannes/doreen110.htm
I am very much afraid the law of unintended consequences are going to catch up with the “Useful Innocents” one of these days and it may be sooner than we like.

Latitude

Well thank God they weren’t able to hurry up and pass it, before we could read what’s in it………..

Hugh Pepper says:
November 16, 2011 at 10:14 am
If the IPCC is “not the most authoritative document on climate changes” as your corespondent claims, then what is? Who else assembles data from around the world and then makes this available to the world’s governments? These are rhetorical questions, because the answers are obvious. No one else is performing this function.

First, you’re starting from an assumption that I question. That such a task needs to be done at all. No one has ever proven to me that there is any need, whatsoever, for the IPCC or UNFCC to exist at all.
Second, the IPCC is not a scientific organization. It is a political one. Were there to be a truly scientific body devoted to this task I might pay it some mind.
Third, it has been proven that the claim that the IPCC “assembles data from around the world” is false. The IPCC assembles confirmational data, from whatever source necessary, to come to a predetermined conclusion.

jorgekafkazar

Hugh Pepper says: “If the IPCC is “not the most authoritative document on fairies” as your corespondent claims, then what is? Who else assembles fables from around the world and then makes this available to the world’s gullible? These are rhetorical questions, because the answers are fantasy. No one else is corrupt enough to be caught performing this function.”
Translations in bold by Jorge.

jorgekafkazar

Wayne Delbeke asks: “…How long before governments come to realize what they are doing? When the greens can no longer get food and clothing or soda cans?”
Somehow, the solution to failed leftist agendas is always another leftist agenda. Like the “Occupy”: mobocracy that is promoting class warfare via Farcebook and the MSM.

Hey Hugh:
“If the IPCC is “not the most authoritative document on climate changes” as your corespondent claims, then what is? Who else assembles data from around the world and then makes this available to the world’s governments? These are rhetorical questions, because the answers are obvious. No one else is performing this function.”
Sorry, this is “who bought your soul” party line loyalty. Evidently you have NOT been paying attention. Aside from 1/2 of the “official reports” in the IPPC annual report being from “Activist Sources” and NOT “peer (or PAL) reviewed science”, to say that everything from NOAA (Bloated with $2,000,000,000 worth of ilgotten taxpayer funded gains, to the European Space Agency, to the “Met Office” in Britain, there are DOZENS of groups “assembling data from around the world”.
I fail to see where the completely adgenda driven, politicized body called the IPPC, should continue to be puffed up by their sychophants. Thank you very much!

DirkH

Ignoring the funny Hugh Pepper for a moment, and back to Durban:
“Europe’s attempt to formulate a ‘coalition of the willing’ seems doomed. ”
It looks like the EU has other cats to whip anyway… basically no Eurozone country is permitted to abandon the Euro! So if one chooses to do so, it must EXIT THE EU.
Spread of Eurozone country yields 1995 to Oct 2011
http://www.thetrader.se/2011/10/09/tic-tac-tic-tac-euro-bomb/
Latest development is that France’s yields grew dramatically. The wheels are coming off the wagon! Santa Claus will bring new currencies – and the EU in its current form will no longer exist.

G. Karst

Hugh Pepper says:
November 16, 2011 at 1:21 pm
Highley7 and Smokey: Gentlemen, as you should know, the IPCC collates researched data from hundreds of scientists and agencies around the world. They review research which has been screened in the peer review process.

Are you by any chance, just 12 years old? Please be honest as we will address a very young person differently.
Otherwise, we must assume, you are fully aware of IPCC’s use of so called “Grey” material especially from WWF and Greenpeace. This logically indicates you are purposely attempting to deceive naive innocents. Please stop! GK

Boy, I come in late and find a HughPepperFest in progress. Pretty good disruption, I’d say. Regardless, with the world economy on the implode, it should come as no surprise that the Euro sector would be circling the wagons. An unpopular decision at this point would be disastrous for the politicos. I haven’t had the heart to watch CNN’s “Road to Durban”…Anybody? Hugh perhaps?

pat

time to plan for up to 7.2 degree rise in global average temps, says a “highly-regarded science panel”. no recommendation to cut back on warring though:
14 Nov: USA Today: Defense science panel: climate a national security threat
The Defense Department’s highly-regarded science panel is calling for the U.S. military to improve intelligence-gathering related to climate change…
The report, “Trends and Implications of Climate Change for National and International Security,” was first noted by the Federation of American Scientists’ “Secrecy News” website. The DSB makes recommendations for the White House, Defense Department and other agencies including:
•Creating an intelligence group to address climate under the Director of National Intelligence
•Support civilian satellites to monitor climate change
•Decision making that assumes a 5.4 to 7.2-degree rise in global average temperatures by the end of the century…
The report concludes in an appendix by assessing various “tipping point” events, such as the melting of the West Antarctic ice sheet and the potential for other nations, mentioning China, to attempt unilateral geoengineering schemes for staving off climate effects.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2011/11/defense-science-panel-climate-a-national-security-threat/1?csp=34news

kim2ooo

G. Karst says:
November 16, 2011 at 2:28 pm
“Are you by any chance, just 12 years old? Please be honest as we will address a very young person differently.”
………………………………….
Hey! don’t give him to us…………… LOL

“The report concludes in an appendix by assessing various “tipping point” events, such as the melting of the West Antarctic ice sheet and the potential for other nations, mentioning China, to attempt unilateral geoengineering schemes for staving off climate effects.”
They’re crazy. The only group of nutniks in the world who believe they have a crystal ball, and are going to implement (“attempt”) prohibitively expensive “guess experiments”. My Gawd. And the MSM just gobbles it up.

kim2ooo

After listening and reading some journalists and politicians…. I’m of a firm belief that it isn’t kids that say dumb stuff 🙂

RockyRoad

The only way someone attending Durban could have a worse carbon footprint is to circumnavigate the globe before landing there. Heck, do it twice if necessary. Or return home for your camera and double the trip distance (at a minimum).
Honestly, can’t they find any place FARTHER afield to hold this charade??

davidmhoffer

Hugh Pepper;
If the IPCC is “not the most authoritative document on climate changes” as your corespondent claims, then what is? Who else assembles data from around the world and then makes this available to the world’s governments?>>>
Actually, I’m sort of on Hugh’s side on this one. He just misworded it a bit. I think what he meant was if the IPCC is not the most authoritative source on CAGW, then who is? Fair question, is it not?
Follow up question would be, if the most authoritative source on CAGW can’t convince the masses that it is real, would that not raise the suspicion that it is a fairy tail? If the most authoritative source relies on misquotes known to be erroneous, studies with hidden declines, marketing documents from lobby organizations, references so convoluted that confirming the source of the numbers quotes is nearly impossible, and vague language that implies everything but states nothing, does that not pretty much sum up the CAGW position?
The most authoritative source on fairy tails is the collection by the Brother’s Grimm. Sorry, but I didn’t believe anything they documented either. But they are the authority!
Keep ’em coming Hugh. I’ve got your back!