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.
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.