The official numbers of partygoers to the 17th Conference of Parties in Durban, South Africa, shape up like this:
Figure 1. Theoretical distribution of the 14,570 partygoers at the Durban 17th Conference of Partygoers. Numbers indicate total delegates from that group.
Slightly more government delegates than NGO representatives. However, as in all things climate, it’s a bit more complex than that.
Anthony points out in a recent post that the proposal on taxation submitted by Bolivia was in fact written by Oxfam. But it’s not just some random Oxfam connection. The Bolivian country delegation itself contains an Oxfam member. And they’re not the only country to do that. The Bangladesh country delegation has three Oxfam members. Belgium has two Oxfam members.
Belgium? I can understand Bolivia needing some help, but Belgium?
Are there really so few government and university climate experts in Belgium that you guys have to include two Oxfam members in your official government delegation? For shame, Belgium. Let those buggers pay their own way, why should the Belgian taxpayer have to stay home and pay for the Oxfam champagne and taxis and hotel rooms?
In total, Oxfam has no less than nine people in various official government delegations. World Resources Institute have two people in official country delegations, as does the Rainforest Alliance. Nature Conservancy and 350.org each have one. And then there are a host of small, local country NGO’s represented in various official government delegations.
Their numbers all pale next to the perennial Oscar winner, the group who almost always wins the Best Actor Award for their long-running mocumentary film series “Activists Pretending to be Scientists”, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). They have no less than fourteen WWF members masquerading as government delegates.
NGOs are not the only offenders in this regard. UNDP people seem to like to party. In addition to the official UNDP delegation, there are eight UNDP employees among the official country delegations.
The oddities don’t end there. Lebanon’s country delegation of 12 people includes the Head of Carbon Sales and Trading of the Standard Bank Plc.
India has four public school students in their delegation, along with the German AID representative.
The Ghana delegation includes someone described as a technician working for the Japan Broadcasting Corp.
Indonesia has someone from the Zoological Society of London.
Papua New Guinea has a representative from the Carbon War Room Corporation.
Italy has four members of the Euro-Mediterranean Center for Climate Change, and one bodyguard.
Ireland has a representative from the “Mary Robinson Foundation for Climate Justice”.
Grenada has two people from Climate Analytics GmbH, which seems to be a company whose business is to provide advice to countries on how to scam the carbon markets.
The overall winner has to be Guinea-Bissau. Their country delegation has 19 people. Only five of them seem to work for the Guinea-Bissau government. The delegation appears to be headed by a man who styles himself as:
Association member, Supreme Master Ching Hai International Association
Dang, that’s a hard one to overtop. The Guinea-Bissau delegation also contains a man from the Global Environment Fund, a host of people with no given affiliation, the International Project Director, Awareness and Advocacy who works for the Centre for Climate Change and Environmental Studies, and mirabile dictu, someone whose affiliation is given simply as “Tianjin Police”.
I have put all of these oddities, along with many people with no given affiliation, in the category “Unknown”. My quick and unscientific analysis gave me the following counts of the actual as opposed to the nominal affiliations of the partygoers.
Figure 2. As in Figure 1, but with the NGO representatives and unknown people removed from the country delegations and placed in their own categories.
Six thousand official NGO representatives, including those masquerading as government representatives. Five thousand government delegates. Fifteen hundred media. A thousand mystery contestants, camp followers, and bodyguards. The beauty parlor is filled with sailors, the circus is in town, and the NGO folks outnumber everyone else.
Please, Congress, please, can we defund these climate parties? We’ve spent millions of dollars and burned millions of litres of jet fuel to haul these parasites to their annual party on some lovely tourist beach somewhere, Rio one year, Cancun the next, Bali the next.
The only thing we’ve gotten from them in return is fraud, waste, and mismanagement. Now, these unelected agenda-driven folks are agitating to tax a host of transactions worldwide. Congresspersons, could we ring the bell on this dangerous trend? International taxes enacted by the UN in any form are a very bad idea. Get rid of this band of thieves before they bankrupt us all.
w.
PS—The official data on the partygoers is available as Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3. My thanks to Ecotretas for the info.
The Bob Dylan quote is perfect.
Willis,
Any chance of a list and number of representatives of the various NGOs represented, those of us who support ome of these entities would like to see how our euros are spent.
[REPLY: The complete list of governmental parties is contained in parts 1 & 2 as cited at the end of the head post. -w.]
Portugal also has an NGO in it’s country delegation. I’m trying to find out who exactly pays the bill. The guy involved, Francisco Ferreira has written to me stating that Quercus is paying the bills. But I doubt he is telling all the truth. I’m trying to find out more about this, and if NGOs have to pay special bills for a seperate presence.
In the meantime, I will leave you with one of the most disgusting movies ever produced by an NGO, the same Quercus I mention, and that got included into the Portuguese delegation:
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_9mjBUSDng&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3%5D
Let me just say I’m not surprised with this breakdown of the attendees to the party.
Another interesting find about the list has been given by Anton Uriarte (in spanish): http://antonuriarte.blogspot.com/2011/11/la-expedicion-femenina-espanola.html
Spain’s delegation is comprised only of women! While there are four men on the list, all of them are local to the Spanish South Africa’s embassy. While a much bigger country than Portugal, they have a smaller delegation than ours. Might it be that women are really better managing these parties?
Ecotretas
This must be the daddy of all bandwaggons; when are people in authority going to wake up?
JamesonLewis3rd says:
December 7, 2011 at 1:49 am
It does fit, doesn’t it? (The lines are from the first verse of “Desolation Row”:
Bob Dylan, Desolation Row
w.
As Donna Laframboise has shown numerous times on her blog and lately in her excellent book “The Lazy Teenager” the IPCC should truthfully be known as the INGOPCC
oops the lazy one was me in my post at 2:25 am. The book title is “The Delinquent Teenager”
Cost must be at least $100 million. Plus the salaries of all the attendees.
These annual climate conferences are easily the biggest CO2 producing events on the planet.
Are there any of those aliens there that are going to destroy the planet?
The delegates are grouped into categories. Persons lsisted in the government delegations have lamost unlimited access to all events. Press, NGOs and even international organizations could not attend the negotiations, participate in the discussions, etc. So it has become a favorite strategy of NGOs to contact friendly government offices to include in the official delegations their own members so that they could effectively monitor the negotiations, the positions of the various government officials, etc that they could then target during and even after the conference itself. T
while this circus plays out Brisbane,s temp. today 7/12/2011 was 19.1 coldest since 1880 bring on the global warming sydney is going to beat all the records for the longest spell of cold weather not reaching above 23deg in over 5 days.northern nsw had coldest day on record today
You gotta fight
For the right
To paaarty!
Hilarious!
Evelyn Waugh, where are you when we need you?
eo says:
December 7, 2011 at 2:45 am
Ah, yes, now I see the plan. Worm your way inside the tent, where you have access to everything and everyone, can attend the negotiation, and the like. Effective. Unethical, but effective.
Thanks for the insight,
w.
The sheer number of people involved is outrageous.
Why doe any country need more than 3 maximum 4 people to listen/negotiate?
What a waste of resources.
@ Baa Humbug
Freudian slip?!
Slightly off topic but last night I was watching the Chinese news channel. It did a piece on Durban and the usual AGW nonsense was being expressed. However, one particpant (a professor from Peking University) said that China would not be signing any deal before 2020. If that is the case, things may have moved on since if temperatures continue to flatline (or perhaps fall) through to 2020, the entire AGW argument will have less legs to stand on and many other countries may at that stage not be willing to commit to any deal.
Ecotretas,
That video is absolutely disgusting.
Durban should keep them going till they head to the World Water Congress, or whatever, next.
While the worlds climaterati party in Durban, is anyone pointing out they have blood on their hands?
“Using Arable Land for Bio-fuels: Carbon Credits in the ‘Valley of Death’
The ugly effects of U.N.-backed ‘clean development’ in Honduras”
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28071
Willis has done an excellent job in portraying what these folks really are: an international band of Robbing Hood thieves, pursuing their agenda in high style with taxpayers footing the bill.
Excuse my ignorance but ‘NGO’ stands for…? Oxfam is…who?
Jeff
The trouble with Non govt organisations (NGOs) as a concept, is that if thier particular grind were significantly justified, they would be government organisations (GOs), and if they aren’t already represented within govt, then what are they for?
Its much the same problem with alternative medicine, if something works medically it becomes official medicine; if NGOs are relevent then they become govt.
The very small percentage of such matters which are ambiguous, or for one reason of another cant be represented by official govt ot offically taken up by medicine, should therefore have a similarly small representation commensurate with their relevance, say about 1%. The numbers of NGOs at copenhagen of course is nothing like this; imagine an orthodox medical conference with ~50% representation by alterative medicine. Woudn’t wash, would it? ‘Alternative earth science’, current climate science should be called, and it should have about 1% relevance.
“We’ve spent millions of dollars and burned millions of litres of jet fuel to haul these parasites to their annual party on some lovely tourist beach somewhere”…..The fascist carbon feeding frenzy…..
JKrob says:
“Excuse my ignorance but ‘NGO’ stands for…? Oxfam is…who?”
You could do a search for Oxfam. It’s easy. Try “Oxfam, UN”. And for ‘NGO’, here’s a handy acronym finder. NGOs are the same as QUANGOs.
So why are NGO’s so involved in this process when they are nothing more than paid for lobby groups?
Feeding frenzy at the UN climate trough. Our billions of tax dollars and euros at work. I would vote for Lucifer himself if he would cut off every last cent from the UN and boot their kleptocrats out of our country.
The NGO’s have a high old time trying out their eco-experiments on ignorant, venal, third world countries. They push all of this nonsense by funding despotic regimes so as to be allowed to try out technological socialism. When it, invariably, fails they drift off back to the home country where their fat bank accounts reside and live the good life on the back of powerless people condemned to misery by the activities of their uncaring “governments” and ignorant social scientists.
Even in South Africa the media is at full volume, and full speed, preaching the apocalyptic results of first world greed and indifference while largely ignoring the corrupt reality that has created the real hopelessness of poverty. They even say that women will be impacted worse than men by run away global warming that is already “obvious” all around. Like the emperors new clothes there is nothing obvious anywhere other than a pack of third world rulers baying for money from the hated “west” in reparation for the economic and social devastation they have wrought.
This is a sick, sick world where the very west that has brought great prosperity and manifest freedoms is excoriated for it’s very success by those who simply demand something for nothing. There is no more of a “nothing” than this insanity of global warming that the third worlders demand compensation from.
Imagine the outcry if oil and coal lobbyists would descend by the thousands on Durban to influence the negotiations, NGO style.
Compared to Mozambique (72) and Namibia (73), NZ has been completely under-represented with only 23 gumint delegates on this junket
And it seems money is no object when it comes to ensuring the comfort of these hypocrites as long as it’s at taxpayer expense of course….just look at Copenhagen
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6736517/Copenhagen-climate-summit-1200-limos-140-private-planes-and-caviar-wedges.html
Ouch! My eyes!
Some of us color-challenged (term used to be ‘color blind’ to certain close color combinations) just hate color pie charts like that (can’t match up the chart ‘key’ to the pie slices; too many slices look alike to us!)
.
Were there enough hookers available?
Did they have to import some… again?
Are any hookers part of a country delagation?
And… howz come they never hold these parties in Muslim countries where liquor is illegal? Oh wait…
See, there is such a thing as a stupid question ;o)
I note with great interest that these NGO representatives are proposing new taxes on shipping and air travel. I hope the readers are aware that this will increase the cost of food and the conveyance of goods and reduce disposable incomes as the cost of living rises. That will lead to wage increase demands, inflation and …
We get steamed up enough about the EU imposing regulations – why are we so supine when it comes to the even less democratic UN and NGOs dictating tax, handout and wealth distribution?
“Please, Congress, please, can we defund these climate parties? Weve spent millions of dollars and burned millions of litres of jet fuel to haul these parasites to their annual party on some lovely tourist beach somewhere, Rio one year, Cancun the next, Bali the next.”
Where ARE our beloved WUWT trolls to condemn these wasteful, carbon-belching partygoers? Oh yeah…
By the way, Willis, I propose that in exchange for ANY funding for these activities, WE get to pick the site for the next COP meeting. Here are some good choices:
* Gary, Indiana (summer meeting site)
* Buffalo, NY (winter meeting site)
Seems like Fenton Communications is the overall organizer and target-setter, not our elected governments. Interesting. In who’s interest exactly?
Taxes by the UN on the world is their first foothold on one world government.
What if a country does not collect these stupid transaction taxes? Then there has to be a mechanism of punishment and collection. That gives the UN power over all countries in a small way, but one that they would find all kinds of reasons to expand, both real and imaginary reasons. Like any government, it would then lust for ever-expanding powers.
You should have made the pie chart with everyone on the left side.
Excellent post, Willis. Very telling. This reminds me of the brouhaha over COP15 with all the NGO people getting locked out. Huge numbers of them:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2009-12/17/content_9192853.htm
Great article. Some comments:
-> “Theoretical distribution”: maybe a better caption for chart #1 is “purported distribution”.
-> “Climate Justice”? What in the world is climate justice? Unfortunately, some folks have distorted the term “justice” to mean “weatlh redistribution”. Sad.
-> Finally, I agree with another poster that the colours are too similar. Perhaps some sort of cross-hatching etc would help differentiate the pie slices.
There are many CO2-producing events each year. 2012 will see hundreds of thousands of people descend (literally!) on London for the olympics. Each weekend there are countless sporting events where tens of thousands of people converge on each sports facility.
I’ve said it before: if governments were truly concerned about CO2 emissions then these unproductive events would be banned.
And while we’re at it, we should also ban any form of human-powered movement besides walking. Running and cycling produce more grams of CO2 per km than walking, and for what? If speed is undesirable on the road then it’s similarly unneeded on the footpath :).
All these parasites would play exactly the same game if the IPCC consensus would propagate catastrophic cooling. Debunking CAGW will not get rid of this class of people.
Peter Ward says:
December 7, 2011 at 6:53 am
“And while we’re at it, we should also ban any form of human-powered movement besides walking. Running and cycling produce more grams of CO2 per km than walking, ”
No, cycling is more efficient than walking. Comparison of efficiencies:
http://www.exploratorium.edu/cycling/humanpower1.html
1 beggar is called a “vagrant”
An organized group of beggars is called an “NGO”
Government departments infiltrated by NGO’s are “tax funded philanthropists”
But what do you have when the NGO gets infiltrated by capitalist pigs?
Answer: Organized beggars who don’t need to beg because they can tax you instead.
Perhaps, given the need for revenue by the federal government, it’s time to remove the tax-exempt status for all but actual charities who do actual charity work for the needy.
One reason why it’s almost impossible to take dangerous “climate Change” seriously is because if these folks actually believed that controlling carbon was really important, they would be doing this conference by conference call.
Christ said the poor will always be with us. It seems to that the leaches will always be with us too.
I have a problem with using the term “NGO” as a catch-all because there are some very useful non-govermnetal organizations operating in developing countries where governments just are not up to the job of dealing with the country’s problems.
I fully agree that the WWFs, Gr$$npeaces etc. are a serious threat to the democratic rights of most of the world’s population, but I hate to have to use the term NGO to refer to these blights on our society. MNGOs fits much better since they are multi-national in precisely the same way that multi-national companies are – a lovely irony since the MNCs were one of their first targets.
As I mentioned, there is a role for NGOs who can get things done on the ground often a lot quicker than governments (OXFAM were originally Oxford Famine Releif and began as a charity collecting and delivering emergency aid), but they should have absolutely no role in multinational policy development. It is a travesty that these big international meetings allow their presence given that they do not actually represent any particular group of “stakeholders”. Their own membership (and funding sources) are so small and narrowly defined which gives them no mandate to speak on behalf of the people they claim to represent. This should be pointed out as they are shown to the door.
The ideas from this conference will be the most vulnerable right after these starry eyed idealists get back. Getting drunk on ones own bathwater is risky at best. Now others are watching!
Should the NGOs at Durban lose their tax exempt status in the US because of their shameless lobbying?
The worst aspect of all this is that these Blackbeards are trying to do on a national scale what some liberal policies have done to the black poulation in the US, convince them that they are owed and victims, a form of class warfare on a global scale. It is very tempting to blame others for ones problems, both indivduals and nations. This global manipulation, combined with increasing poverty can easily lead to world conflict.
One important aspect of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO) is that in all fields of endeavor (not just climate) they represent a primary means to recycle government “donor” funds (i.e. taxes) back to donor country insiders.
For example (this is all a money flow):
Tax $$-> World Bank / U.N. $$ -> recipient countries get $$ -> recipient countries establish questionable “projects” -> $$ to NGOs who “support and enable” questionable “projects” -> $$ to NGO contractors and employees, and corrupt recipient country government officials who take their $$ “skim.”
This has been going on for decades, not just in climate but in other fields such as agriculture and computer projects (“modernization”).
So it’s no surprise that in the chart above the NGO attendees outnumber the country delegations. It’s all just a big money game based on taxpayer handouts.
By the way, I agree with other posters that the chart colors and legends are not very clear.
Some unresolved issues with the relationship it looks like . . .
http://mg.co.za/article/2011-12-07-ministers-at-cop17-deserve-oscars-say-ngos
Ecotretas says:
Spain’s delegation is comprised only of women!
————————–
Yeeaah Baby!
Garry says:
December 7, 2011 at 7:41 am
One important aspect of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO) is that in all fields of endeavor (not just climate) they represent a primary means to recycle government “donor” funds (i.e. taxes) back to donor country insiders.
———————————————
It’s worse than we thought.
Environmental Group(s) donate and help get friendly administration elected. => Environmental Group conspires with administration’s EPA to sue the EPA to regulate Carbon. => EPA lays down but not before generating $millions in legal fees for Environmental Group’s lawyers paid for by tax payers. => EPA “loses” in court and has to enact carbon regulations. => EPA shells out grants to Environmental Group(s) to “spread awareness” about carbon. => Environmental Group(s) recoup their donations and then some. => Rinse repeat.
I am reposting this here since it fits better…
Activists and NGOs
Several years ago I looked into NGOs because of the WTO/Food/Animal ID issue. Here is some relevant stuff from my notes. (The links may no longer work)
BACKGROUND:
From a history blog:
Remember the Students for a Democratic Society on campus when you were in college?
THE ORIGINS OF NGOs
Remember Maurice Strong, Chair of the First Earth Summit in 1972 that started CAGW? The guy who said “…current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class…are not sustainable. A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally damaging consumption patterns….” in his opening remarks at Earth Summit II in 1992.
In brief Maurice Strong worked in Saudi Arabia for a Rockefeller company, Caltex, in 1953. He left Caltex in 1954 to worked at high levels in banking and oil. By 1971, he served as a trustee for the Rockefeller Foundation, and in 1972 was Secretary-General of the U.N. Conference on the Human Environment. He was Co-founder of the WWF and Senior Advisor to the World Bank and the UN.
Strong’s early work with YMCA international “…may have been the genesis of Strong’s realization that NGOs (non-government organizations) provide an excellent way to use NGOs to couple the money from philanthropists and business with the objectives of government.” http://sovereignty.net/p/sd/strong.html
NGOs REPLACE VOTERS in USA
By Presidential Executive Order the USA was divided into ten regions. These regions are governed by an unholy mix of unelected government bureaucrats and NGOs. The regions were set up by President Nixon but the implementation of the “regional governance concept began in earnest with the Clinton-Gore administration. “On the heels of the President’s Council on Sustainable Development , came the President’s Community Empowerment Board, chaired by Vice President Al Gore,” [ http://www.rense.com/general63/ree.htm ] These quasi-governmental regional authorities are slowly transforming the US from representative government to government by United Nations sponsored and directed NGOs and appointed bureaucrats.
THE BEHIND THE SCENES PLAYERS
Alternate links: http://www.livescience.com/9704-world-stocks-controlled-select.html
http://wprorev.com/2009/08/scientific-study-find-just-few-funds.htm
The whole Rockefeller/Strong/Saudi/Khashoggi/CIA/Bush/oil/banking interconnections are worth pursuing considering the 1973 Oil Crisis bankrupted third World Countries so they had to get World bank/IMF loans with SAPs strings controlling their governments. The UN’s Commission on Global Governance, (Maurice Strong of course was a member) was established in 1992, after Rio, at the suggestion of Willy Brandt, former West German chancellor and head of the Socialist International.
Kissinger/rockefeller/Saudi Royal Family connection: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch27.html
Strong’s web site: http://www.mauricestrong.net/ in google states: Maurice Strong globalized the environmental movement.
richard verney says:
December 7, 2011 at 3:07 am
Re:
Would that it were true.
Wall Street Journal had some coverage of the Durban debacle last night. Actually it was the first news I’d seen, and it wasn’t good:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204903804577080223812409562.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
China knows its sputtering economy is dependent on cheap energy. You’ve got to wonder why they would do this.
The best analogy is that they are proposing a high-stakes game of chicken, in which they have every intention of swerving at the last second. Not to swerve would be tantamount to suicide.
Here’s what China evidently put on the table Monday (from Tuesday’s WSJ article):
Bill Parsons says:
December 7, 2011 at 10:06 am
richard verney says:
The WSJ article is behind a paywall, can’t read it. However, I’ll agree with the “professor from Peking university” that the Chinese are not going to sign a damn thing, even by 2020, unless it doesn’t bind them to do a damn thing ….
w.
“Are there really so few government and university climate experts in Belgium that you guys have to include two Oxfam members in your official government delegation?”
Don’t be too hard on Belgium, since it is really not even a country, does not have a government, and does not have any money: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/how_to_make_sense_of_the_european_union_disaster.html
Weird.
“…the Chinese are not going to sign a damn thing, even by 2020, unless it doesn’t bind them to do a damn thing ….”
On top of that, the Chinese are no doubt scheming to get a hefty cut of that spondulax.
Forget whether they’re representing NGOs, governments or the UN I’m still trying to get my head around the fact that over 10,000 people are getting an all expenses paid vacation to Durban for doing, essentially, nothing.
We Belgians have send Van Ypersele to Durban and his zeal will make more than up for the lack of knowledge of the rest of our delegation.
Brilliant bit of detective work there, Willis. To this point in time you are the ONLY individual who has ever brought the NGO/UN/Climate cartel into the general public’s day to day thinking. For the most part many of us have had a somewhat fuzzy picture of NGOs as semi-beauty pageant contestants who only want world peace without the bikinis to make them interesting.
However, Willis’ article gives us a whole new view of the UN itself. And how the third world and in many cases the first world conspire, and I use the word conspire deliberately, with AGW climate science plus local, regional, and national NGO groups to SELL the POLITICS of AGW to the western world. Not the science of AGW – but the POLITICS of the pro-AGW side to the western general public. The UN itself IS a full partner in this conspiracy – a hidden conspiracy only brought to light by Willis’ article showing how the third world and many members of the first world “deliberately” use NGOs as their “official” members. Moreover, the UN itself uses groups such as Greenpeace to even write IPCC reports.
The damage these NGO groups do back home are massive – they act together and fund protests and court cases all over the western world virtually bringing modern business to a complete stoppage. We need far better information on these groups – who funds them for a start. How do they always seem to be quoted in TV or newspaper articles? What is the connection between reporters and NGOs? How do we find that knowledge? What is the connections between NGOs and local, regional, and national governments? Via who? Etc., etc.,
morgo says:
December 7, 2011 at 2:46 am
///////////////////////////////////////////
Morgo
I have been watching the Aussie weather forecasts for some time when global details are given, and have noted the cold weather out there, and have been thinking that it is as warm (or even warmer) here in Spain and we are in winter and you guys are in summer! Unless the temps rise soon, it looks like you guys are in for a poor summer. Don’t worry, I am sure that you will be told that 2011 is one of the hottest years on record. .
Look, I know some of you are above this, but I’m not.
Now that there’s absolutely no danger of any of this nonsense doing any more damage than has already been set in place, I’m getting on the gravy train.
I’m old enough and have been through enough to feel as “entitled” to a sinecure as any of these quango hippies “Occupying” 5-star hotels.
If I don’t see you in Doha for next year’s annual Conference of Partiers #18, then rest assured you’ll be in my thoughts as I write a scathing hyperbolic indictment of you, your family and your entire existence.
Cheers, evil capitalist lackeys! And watch that carbon footprint!
http://www.fourseasons.com/doha
“Few destinations can compete with the unique hospitality that awaits visitors to Qatar. Plush, upmarket hotels combine impeccable and discreet service with wonderful restaurants and fantastic leisure facilities. ”
http://www.experienceqatar.com/pages/homepage/corporate/hotels.php
Ooohhh… can’t wait to see what I get with “discreet service.” I will definitely max out my ethical climate justice expense account. (Note to lackeys: make sure you pay your FULL tax debt on time this year. I’ll be needing it).
What you do is “overbuild” coal power plants at the same time you crank up nuclear plant construction. Then just as the nuclear plants are set to start coming online, you make some agreement with other countries where everyone agrees to freeze their CO2 output. So everyone agree. Now at this point, China starts bringing the nuclear plants on line so their available generation capacity is increasing while the other nations can’t increase their generation capacity without building inefficient windmills and solar that are basically useless at industrial scale. As a result, energy costs skyrocket in the other countries while they continue to decline in China.
Then maybe China agree to actual cuts in CO2 and starts taking some of their oldest coal plant offline as more nuclear generation is brought into the grid.
The reason why they would do it is because they have no aversion whatsoever to building nuclear power. They have no problem conceptually with replacing all of their coal with nuclear. They know that the West does. So they know they have a natural advantage in this game because we will checkmate ourselves.
“other aspect of the fuel cycle” mean reprocessing spent fuel so it is recycled rather than buried like we want to do.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf63.html
Times must be hard for the WWF. They went to Copenhagen with more than 120 delegates (pdf – see page 177 – 179) under their own name. This year it’s just over 50.
The numbers in Durban is half that of Copenhagen. Nobody brought George Clooney this time!(see page 135 of the pdf linked to above).
Willis Eschenbach says: @ December 7, 2011 at 10:29 am
Bill Parsons says: @ December 7, 2011 at 10:06 am
richard verney says: @ December 7, 2011 at 3:07 am
Re:
However, one particpant (a professor from Peking University) said that China would not be signing any deal before 2020.
….The WSJ article is behind a paywall, can’t read it. However, I’ll agree with the “professor from Peking university” that the Chinese are not going to sign a damn thing, even by 2020, unless it doesn’t bind them to do a damn thing ….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If China thinks it can get it’s Nuclear up and running fast, esp nuclear powered shipping they may go for the tax on CO2 for shipping or even just a CO2 tax IF it kicks in in about ten years or so. or doesn’t include them.
With the NIMBYs in the EU & USA ,it will put China at the distinct advantage of having non CO2 power while the west does not. This will put them long term in control of world shipping.
So the environmental NGOs in the EU and USA are dealing our countries a double whammy not only by wanting to tax us into the ground but by allowing China, India and Africa the advantage of nuclear power while we are stuck with windmills and solar panels.
As we know from history, shipping (merchants) is where the real money/control is.
Biles Gates is FUNDING some of China’s nuclear research: http://goodcleantech.pcmag.com/future-tech/291415-bill-gates-building-a-safer-nuclear-reactor-with-china
“….a number of countries have decided to move away from reliance on nuclear energy due to safety concerns. Leading the way has been Germany, which plans to be completely nuclear-free by 2022. However, in spite of this, a number of countries have plans to adopt nuclear energy, particularly in the Middle East and North Africa.”
Key to China’s nuclear fuel cycle is this:
To understand why, please see “Smarter Use of Nuclear Waste” Scientific American, December 2005
http://www.gemarsh.com/wp-content/uploads/SciAm-Dec05.pdf
The one-world totalitarians already have plans in place for when climalarmism finally fails. Don’t doubt it for a minute. See this blog post on WUWT for one proposition that strongly advocates that all scientists should work for the government, just to avoid another scandal like the CAGW bruhaha.
This U of Duke professor says that his being a Marxist is
“very irrelevant to any discussion of the value of government funded science, basic or otherwise”.
He also plainly states that, in order to avoid being an idiot, one must be partially (but not completely) Marxist.
He does not believe in either leaven or Santa Claus.
Where do the academics fit in the pie of all those involved in the UN takeover bid, for which the CAGW farce is only one strategy?
I think people are greatly underestimating this meeting and I also believe it has INTENTIONALLY been kept lower key. This isn’t about IPCC, this meeting is about UNFCCC. That’s a significant difference. The IPCC doesn’t really issue policy recommendations, the UNFCCC does. The IPCC is basically justification for what UNFCCC puts out.
The problem here is that many government bureaus have decided to “internationalize” their policies. In other words, they all go with whatever the UNFCCC suggest. In fact, UEA make a good deal of money with Tyndall Centre helping DEFRA keep in line with UNFCCC policy. This is how “world governance” is working today. UNFCCC puts out the policies and the other various government agencies around the world have decided they will follow. Note that no debate occurred in an elected body anywhere in this process. That is by design.
So watch very carefully what UNFCCC puts out in this meeting. While everyone has their eyes on the huge, broadly sweeping things like shipping taxes, they are likely to spew a myriad of lesser policy recommendations that will be taken up wholesale by the various agencies around the world resulting in billion of dollars in “consulting” fees to various think tanks and NGOs.
This is low key by design, in my opinion. Pay extremely close attention to what comes out of Durban.
Oxfam is indeed an important cog-in-the-wheel oof the global warming scam together with WWF.
Apart from advocating taxes for global shipping, Oxfam is playing a pivotal role in Climate Smart Agriculture. Fopr our critique please visit:
‘Climate Smart Agriculture’: The new eco-imperialistic
http://devconsultancygroup.blogspot.com/2011/12/climate-smart-agriculture-new-eco.html
In other words, it is my opinion that the politicians WANT this session ignored. The last thing they want is sunlight shown on the various policy recommendations these people are cooking up that will be implemented by their various local and national government in lockstep. They don’t want media reporting on what is being discussed because that might lead to heated debate and the LAST thing they want is public debate on the implementation of the policies out of this group. They want everything to go smoothly with little notice.
A quick word search of the three pdf files reveals one U.S. Senator (*) in attenance at Durban, along with half a dozen representatives of the house of representatives (counsel or staff members from the U.S. House). Sure seems like the U.S. government is trying to put some distance between itself and climate change.
* Mr. Troy Lynn Fraser
Senator
Texas State Senate
Sorry if that article on China is paywall-blocked. It seems to work going in through the Google search: “WSJ, Durban”. We’re paper subscribers, but I didn’t think that was necessary.
WRT comments on nuclear: A commenter from the WSJ said something similar:
* peter staats wrote:
WRT “The Chinese won’t sign a damn thing.” I agree that this appears to be serious posturing.
Sounds like they saw our delegation.
crosspatch says:
December 7, 2011 at 11:55 am
I agree with your interesting analysis of the Chinese machinations. However, if UNFCCC were “INTENTIONALLY” keeping it low key, why invite fifteen hundred journalists to the party?
That dog won’t hunt …
w.
Peter Ward says:
December 7, 2011 at 6:53 am
I have to disagree with the idea that cycling produces more CO2 per km must be flawed. It is definitely less effort to cycle. I understand that a human cycling is the most efficient form of land transport for all animals, in fact.
I propose a test where someone walks for 1km, and another cycles for 1km, and measure the CO2 produced. There are factors like the ‘background’ CO2 produced by a person at rest having to be deducted, but I still believe the cyclist will win.
I am not including the CO2 produced in creating the cycle, however.
A Canadian MP represents … … Papua New Guinea?!
http://blogs.canada.com/2011/12/05/may-registers-for-durban-summit-through-developing-country/
A first-hand blog account…
http://www.sustainability.com/blog/the-durban-disconnects#.TtyVOnOvPzU
“Partygoers” being the operative word!! Say no more!
BAck when I was in grad school we had a seminar session every Friday. One that I still remember was from a female scientist – unfortunately I can’t recall her name – who worked for one of the big environmental groups. The topic of her discussion? How environmental NGO’s do a poor job when it comes to science. She talked about how it was common for PR’s to copy anything seen elsewhere in the media without vetting it and resending it out as proof of their positions, among other things.
Skip forward a few years and the science education non-profit I’ve spent 16+ years with as a mentor and later as a board member, scrubs any and every reference in our programs to “environmental” because of the bad connotations and baggage environmental education has managed to accumulate.
Well, it’s not all rainbows and unicorns for Greenpeace in Australia:
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/greenpeace-plugs-2m-hole-in-budget-20111207-1ojas.html
“Greenpeace plugs $2m hole in budget
Tom Arup
December 8, 2011
GREENPEACE International has stepped in to bail out its Australian branch after it ran up several million dollars of losses recently.
[snip]
Following three years of losses adding up to about $3 million, Greenpeace International has lent the Australia-Pacific branch $2 million over five years to expand fund-raising programs.
The money is due to be paid back by 2015-16 and the Australia-Pacific branch is required to develop a new three-year strategic plan.
[snip]
Greenpeace Australia Pacific has also shed 10 jobs over the past year.
In its financial statement for 2010, Greenpeace Australia-Pacific recorded a $1 million loss, following a $1.5 million deficit in 2009. In 2008 it made a more moderate loss of $190,000.
From 2008 to 2010 the group’s annual income from fund-raising has fallen from $19.9 million to $16 million.
In its 2010 financial statement the Australia-Pacific branch of the organisation says it has $2.9 million in reserves.”
1. The final report won’t be published until long after everyone is gone.
2. Were the journalists specifically invited or did they request to attend because that is where the story is at the moment? Besides, who wouldn’t want a Southern Hemisphere vacation this time of year?
Oh, and Willis, with 1500 journalists in attendance, the “buzz” coming from the event is quite subdued, don’t you think? I believe there’s a reason for that.
Anthony, thank you for this.
It was jaw dropping. I may try to comment later but now I’m in a state of amazement. I will now go back and read the comments.
Are the lists cited at the end of the article leaked or hacked? LOL
Rob Potter says:
December 7, 2011 at 7:26 am
I have a problem with using the term “NGO” as a catch-all because there are some very useful non-govermnetal organizations operating in developing countries where governments just are not up to the job of dealing with the country’s problems.
I fully agree that the WWFs, Gr$$npeaces etc. are a serious threat to the democratic rights of most of the world’s population, but I hate to have to use the term NGO to refer to these blights on our society. MNGOs fits much better since they are multi-national in precisely the same way that multi-national companies are – a lovely irony since the MNCs were one of their first targets.
As I mentioned, there is a role for NGOs who can get things done on the ground often a lot quicker than governments (OXFAM were originally Oxford Famine Releif and began as a charity collecting and delivering emergency aid), but they should have absolutely no role in multinational policy development. It is a travesty that these big international meetings allow their presence given that they do not actually represent any particular group of “stakeholders”. Their own membership (and funding sources) are so small and narrowly defined which gives them no mandate to speak on behalf of the people they claim to represent. This should be pointed out as they are shown to the door.
=========================
Can you provide some links with regards to supporting your comment. Pardon me, but I’m skeptical and you may have a real eye opener here.
It appears that this could be another case of a hijacked organization. Perhaps you or someone could research this (Oxfam) and show how originally credible organizations are hijacked. There have been too many examples of this to date. Control the medium and you can control the message. That is the underlying stratagy with the green agenda. So far it has been successful except that the truth appears to be gaining ground.
Revealing the hijacking of various organizations and how it was done could be the final blow in the big green scam.
Junket is still the most popular desert in some circles.
eyesonu,
There is plenty of evidence that professional organizations have been succesfully targeted for hijacking. It’s not that difficult. I was an officer in an international organization, and saw how easy it was for only one or two people to nudge the organization in a different direction using innocent sounding motions. Once the first motion is passed by the Board, subsequent motions build on it. Eventually the official policy of the organization is changed.
Here are two links that will help show what’s being done [the second link is especially pertinent in Part 2]:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/On_The_Hijacking_of_the_American_Meteorological_Society.pdf
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf
Ham says:
December 7, 2011 at 2:06 pm
A Canadian MP represents … … Papua New Guinea?!
http://blogs.canada.com/2011/12/05/may-registers-for-durban-summit-through-developing-country/>>>
The governing party of Canada decided this year that they would not bring members of the opposition with them, and if any went themselves, they would not be allowed to represent themselves as delegates representing Canada. So, Ms May, who leads a party (The Green Party) with exactly one seat… had to find another way to get to be an official delegate so she could spout off.
Smokey says:
December 7, 2011 at 7:43 pm
eyesonu,
There is plenty of evidence that professional organizations have been succesfully targeted for hijacking. It’s not that difficult. I was an officer in an international organization, and saw how easy it was for only one or two people to nudge the organization in a different direction using innocent sounding motions. Once the first motion is passed by the Board, subsequent motions build on it. Eventually the official policy of the organization is changed.
Here are two links that will help show what’s being done [the second link is especially pertinent in Part 2]:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/On_The_Hijacking_of_the_American_Meteorological_Society.pdf
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf
========================
Thanks for the links. I read the second one by Lindzen. Long read but very informative. I wasn’t aware that someone had put in in perspective in an individual paper. This type of behavior has been covered on WUWT and Climate Audit over the past couple of years. Would be good reading for one fairly new to the Global Warming Swindle.
I will check out the first link (icecap) later.
It’s all moot.
The JAXA IBUKI satellite has revealed that the West is a CO2 sink, and the undeveloped world a major source. So the only feasible mitigation scheme is the rapid industrialization of the under-developed nations (udn). Alternatively, if the net effects of CO2 turn out to be positive, the West will need to begin paying the udn for their output.
Hilarious!
When the gods make jokes, they don’t fool around!
Nauru and Tuvalu each have about 10 representatives and a total population of about 10,000 people. They are sending .1% of their population.
😀
Raving says:
December 8, 2011 at 12:05 am
And the number of Durban attendees is 1.5 times the population of Nauru and Tuvalu. If the alarmists really believe that sea level is rising they ought to turn over their flight costs to pay for the resettlement of “climate refugees”. By my calculation every year 15,000 deserving souls could get business class one way tickets to anywhere in the world, instead of wasting the money on a big party.
Since sea level is going down the money could be loaned to Greece until needed.
36 hours to save our dying planet!
Sign the petition
http://www.avaaz.org/en/the_planet_is_dying
crosspatch says:
December 7, 2011 at 11:55 am
I’m still trying to get my head around the fact that over 10,000 people are getting an all expenses paid vacation to Durban for doing, essentially, nothing.
I think people are greatly underestimating this meeting and I also believe it has INTENTIONALLY been kept lower key. This isn’t about IPCC, this meeting is about UNFCCC. That’s a significant difference. The IPCC doesn’t really issue policy recommendations, the UNFCCC does. The IPCC is basically justification for what UNFCCC puts out.
The problem here is that many government bureaus have decided to “internationalize” their policies. In other words, they all go with whatever the UNFCCC suggest. In fact, UEA make a good deal of money with Tyndall Centre helping DEFRA keep in line with UNFCCC policy. This is how “world governance” is working today. UNFCCC puts out the policies and the other various government agencies around the world have decided they will follow. Note that no debate occurred in an elected body anywhere in this process. That is by design.
So watch very carefully what UNFCCC puts out in this meeting. While everyone has their eyes on the huge, broadly sweeping things like shipping taxes, they are likely to spew a myriad of lesser policy recommendations that will be taken up wholesale by the various agencies around the world resulting in billion of dollars in “consulting” fees to various think tanks and NGOs.
This is low key by design, in my opinion. Pay extremely close attention to what comes out of Durban.
===========================================================
This comes from a link someone gave to: http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/12/06/more-u-n-insanity-paid-for-by-u-s-taxpayers/
“The first GCF meeting of the 40-member design team, the “Transitional Committee” (TC), took place in Mexico City on April 28-29. Its charge was to prepare “operational specifications” for the GCF in time for approval at U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change meeting in Durban, South Africa last week. You can bet that its primary goal will be to finalize financing strategies to squeeze those annual $100 billion installments out of American consumers unencumbered by Congressional approvals.”
“from which: As Ottmar Edenhofer, a German economist and co-chair of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Working Group III on Mitigation of Climate Change admitted in an Investor’s Business Daily interview, “The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month [December, 2010] is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War.”
Durban is a continuation of the process which is now set in the world order climate of the moment, for example the EU making a concerted grab to usurp the sovereignty of member states and the general strengthening of the UN position on organising the back up to such takeovers, limiting the affects of dissenting voices and the possibility that these could escalate into armed rebellion.
But, rebellion against whom? Against the puppets, the useful idiots politicians of all stripes dancing to the same tune at the end of their strings? How would that improve our lot? It’s the cabal of bwankers who are doing the manipulating, and war or peace or sides matters not a jot to them, they’ve been manipulating these for a long time and have improved their skills. This has developed from a one particular family’s ghengis khan rise to power, but now unseen and difficult to spot even if one gets back to the banker’s cabal which they put in place. I found a short early history useful in understanding the tactics in use today: http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/slavery.htm
As I see it, all this background is useful knowledge, but little can actually be achieved by direct confrontation – I think the key to getting rid of them is a two pronged attack, against the ‘consensus science’ they are using to ‘unite’ people to their cause and against the usurpation of the political system.
The first is going great guns, the climategate2 emails and we now even have superlords flying through the air to get themselves noticed, but the second to get back the freedoms already some have by right by nationals who have such is lagging behind, Britain in its Common Law has no parliamentary authority to usurp freedom and the US nationals have this in their constitution and these are being whittled away.
That this knowledge is now successfully hidden and legislation put into place to limit freedoms propagandised as being lawful is where re-education has to begin – the fight against this should be in reclaiming rights for the people to have a government that is subservient to them and is there to uphold their freedom from dictorship however arrived, by any dictatorship, even when democratically elected if that becomes tyranny.
This is truly good news. The breakdown would indicate a distinct lack of enthusiasm from Governments, and that climate change is decreasing in importance for those who are more interested in surviving the global economic slowdown than listening to the increasingly desperate advocates of what is proving to be a politically-driven global scam. It might be worthwhile checking the status of government reps against those sent previous jamborees. If I’m right, there would be a decrease in status and a consequent reduction in flunkies.
The hijacking of NGOs has been insidious. How are the sheep supposed to recognize a wolf in sheep’s clothing. The disguise is near perfect and we are in danger. Just not from warming. GK
eyesonu says:
December 7, 2011 at 7:05 pm
I call them charities to differentiate them from NGOs. NGOs are political organizations masquerading as charities. REAL charities are interested in helping not writing laws and regulations – different animal all together.
WWFPCC?
An Ad that simply lists the gross revenues, the number of employees and the total compensation packages of the top brass at each of these institutions would open many eyes.