Gosh. Who knew that a massive tax could solve all imagined climate problems?
David L. Hagen writes:
The UN is demanding control over $1.6 trillion per year to control climate. See Section 47 in draft # FCCC/AWGLCA/2011/CRP.39 9 December 2011 #GE.11-71576 at: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/awglca14/eng/crp39.pdf
47. The provision of the amount of funds to be made available annually to developing country Parties, which shall be equivalent to the budget that developed countries spend on defence, security, and warfare. Fifty per cent of that amount shall be for adaptation, 20 per cent for mitigation, 15 per cent for technology development and transfer and 15 per cent for forest-related actions in developing country Parties;
See Reuters: Worldwide military spending edged up in 2010 to a record $1.6 trillion, a leading think-tank said on Monday. Source: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute’s military expenditure database. http://www.sipri.org/research/armaments/milex/research/armaments/milex/milex_database . . .
Until then, the immediate urgent task is to provide alternative fuels while caring for the poor.Conventional climate mitigation comes in dead last in benefit/cost.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
According to Monckton, those trillions of dollars would not go direct to the ‘suffering’ nations, but straight to the UN coffers for them to distribute. But distribute among whom? How much of that money would really reach the drowning vanuatans. Of course, since the vanuatans will not actually drown, they will not get any of those trillions. There lies the scam.
Alex the Skeptic;
(the descriptor ‘Industrious Countries’ would be a truer one>>>
True! If the 3rd world were not run by a collection of corrupt dictatorships, monarchies, and theocracies determined to cling to power at any cost, they wouldn’t BE the 3rd world, and there would be nobody to transfer the wealth to!
Man, you gotta read the twitter feed from #cop17 Marxists gone nuts.
Batman-: Could it be……………………………………..
Robin-: What Batman?
Batman-: Could it be that Whatsupwith that has fallen for a fake document again, a document put out by……………………..by The Joker.
Robin-: Holy Jovial Jesters Batman, you mean the Funny Fiend is in Durban writing fake documents to entrap the gullible, Batman?
Batman-: That’s exactly what I mean Boy Wonder, there’s no time to lose, quick Robin, slide down this pole.
1,600,000,000,000
The average number of air molecules you have to count before you find the first CO2.
Wanna see $100 dollar bills stacked up ?
http://www.pagetutor.com/trillion/calculations.html
It is obvious, our elected officials have no concept of a “Trillion”.
Jimmy Haigh says: December 10, 2011 at 4:22 pm
“1,600,000,000,000 … The average number of air molecules you have to count before you find the first CO2.”
You have made a slight mistake.
390 ppm equals to one CO2 molecule among 2,564 air molecules.
There appear to be two different versions:
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/awglca14/eng/crp39.pdf
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/awglca14/eng/l04.pdf
The first is the one linked to above, the second is what is now on the UNFCC website http://unfccc.int/meetings/durban_nov_2011/meeting/6245.php where it says “The AWG-LCA text is now available here.”
I believe the 2nd, newer version has been watered down considerably, which has angered many. This appears to be somewhat of a repeat of the Copenhagen performance, with some parties already having left, and those remaining desperately trying to strike some sort of deal, as time runs out.
Dumb-: Could it be PeterT has not bothered to notice that the document comes straight from the UN web site?
Dumber-: You know, just when I think no one can get any dumber…you go and totally redeem yourself by pointing out the obvious!
the comments must be embarrassing for Black and the Beeb:
11 Dec: BBC: Richard Black: UN climate talks near chaotic end
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16124670
But you guys keep on telling me we already spends trillions on AGW.
But now it turns out 1.6 trillion is the total military expenditure of the entire developed world.
Any body seen the establishment of an Eco corps equivalent in size to the usa military, which seems to have a major military base in every major town. Or are you hiding it in area 51?
Nope no sign of them. Which must mean that every one of you who pulls trillions of AGW out of thin air is not particularly skeptical.
I’ll bet the $1.6 Trillion is JUST the down payment; greed knows no limit!
FOIA File structure seen as DOS file structure.
SUB Directory REDACTED.
CD/ redacted
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?search=REDACTED
DIR
—
Thu, 9 Oct 2008 6:56:17 am
0058.txt- Ralf
0058.txt-
0058.txt:[[[redacted: reference]]]
0058.txt-
0058.txt- Finally, might I ask that you note and then erase this email. I have found that recent
—
OPEN 0058.txt-
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=0058.txt&search=REDACTED
“
date: Thu Oct 9 17:56:17 2008
from: Keith Briffa
subject: Re: Tom Giverin – IN STRICT CONFIDENCE
to: “Toumi, Ralf”
Ralf
[[[redacted: reference]]]
Finally, might I ask that you note and then erase this email. I have found that recent
enquiries under the Freedom of Information Act, or Data Protection Act, can become
considerable time sinks , or the basis of some inconvenient subsequent distractions.
with best wishes
Keith
At 12:38 09/10/2008, you wrote:
Dear Keith,
Tom has applied to do a PhD with me (probably mesoscale modelling). Could you please
give me a reference for him. In particular I would be interested to know if you would
take him in your group (and why you think he is still available; which is good for
me…, but I always worry at this time of year).
Best wishes,
Ralf
Professor Ralf Toumi
Department of Physics
Imperial College
London SW7 2AZ
UK
Rm. H713 (Huxley Building)
Telephone: + 44 (0) ???
Fax: + 44 (0) ???
email: [1]???@imperial.ac.uk
Web: [2]http://www.sp.ph.ic.ac.uk/~rtoumi/
—
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: +4 ???-1603-593909
Fax: +4 ???-1603-507784
[3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
Open — it is also a filename, + = space key seen on FOIA Grepper.
DIR
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?search=+–
“### CANNOT PARSE DATE ###
0876437553.txt-Sounds like you guys have been busy doing good things for the cause.
0876437553.txt-
0876437553.txt:I would like to weigh in on two important questions —
0876437553.txt-“
0876437553.txt:I would like to weigh in on two important questions —
0876437553 = UNIX time stamp
Open 0876437553.txt
“From: Joseph Alcamo
To: ???@uea.ac.uk, ???@rivm.nl
Subject: Timing, Distribution of the Statement
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 18:52:33 0100
Reply-to: ???@usf.uni-kassel.de
Mike, Rob,
Sounds like you guys have been busy doing good things for the cause.
I would like to weigh in on two important questions —
Distribution for Endorsements —
I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution as
possible for endorsements. I think the only thing that counts is
numbers. The media is going to say “1000 scientists signed” or “1500
signed”. No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000
without. They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a
different story.
Conclusion — Forget the screening, forget asking
them about their last publication (most will ignore you.) Get those
names!
Timing — I feel strongly that the week of 24 November is too late.
1. We wanted to announce the Statement in the period when there was
a sag in related news, but in the week before Kyoto we should expect
that we will have to crowd out many other articles about climate.
2. If the Statement comes out just a few days before Kyoto I am
afraid that the delegates who we want to influence will not have any
time to pay attention to it. We should give them a few weeks to hear
about it.
3. If Greenpeace is having an event the week before, we should have
it a week before them so that they and other NGOs can further spread
the word about the Statement. On the other hand, it wouldn’t be so
bad to release the Statement in the same week, but on a
diffeent day. The media might enjoy hearing the message from two
very different directions.
Conclusion — I suggest the week of 10 November, or the week of 17
November at the latest.
Mike — I have no organized email list that could begin to compete
with the list you can get from the Dutch. But I am still
willing to send you what I have, if you wish.
Best wishes,
Joe Alcamo
—————————————————-
Prof. Dr. Joseph Alcamo, Director
Center for Environmental Systems Research
University of Kassel
Kurt Wolters Strasse 3
D-34109 Kassel
Germany”
There is still filename —————————————————-
DIR
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?search=+—————————————————-
Thu, 11 Jul 1996 1:07:13 pm
0837094033.txt-> NR4 7TJ
0837094033.txt-> UK
0837094033.txt:> —————————————————————————-
0837094033.txt->
0837094033.txt->
—
Open
0837094033.txt:> —————————————————————————-
“From: Alan Robock
To: Phil Jones
Subject: Re: your mail
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 10:07:13 -0400 (EDT)
Dear Phil,
It looks like you have found Baitoushan. Vol. 2 lists Kuwae as VEI 6 in
1452 +/- 10 AD. How accurate are your dates? By the way, Chris Newhall
thinks 1600 is the Parker volcano on Mindanao in the Philippines. He
hasn’t published that so far, as I know.
Could you please define “utter prat” for me? Sometimes I think we speak
the same language, and sometimes I’m not so sure.
I’m doing fine. We have a new building with nice new offices. I’m going
to Australia next week with Sherri and Danny, and after the meeting, will
visit Cairns, Adelaide, and New Zealand. I’m looking forward to skiing
on a volcano, if it stops erupting.
Alan
Prof. Alan Robock Phone: (301)???
Department of Meteorology Fax: (301)???
University of Maryland Email: ???@atmos.umd.edu
College Park, MD 20742 http://www.meto.umd.edu/~alan
On Thu, 11 Jul 1996, Phil Jones wrote:
> Alan,
> Thanks for the quick response. We’ll expect something from Melissa
> in the next few weeks. I also hope our copy of the 2cnd edition arrives
> soon. In our maximum latewood density reconstruction from the polar Urals
> to AD 914, the most anomalous summer is AD 1032. A lot of other volcano
> years are there with summers of -3 to -4 sigma such as 1816,1601,1783 and
> 1453 (I think this later one is Kuwae that is being found in the Ice Cores
> in the Antarctic. However 1032 is 6 sigma and it may be the Baitoushan
> event which you say is 1010 +/- 50 years or the Billy Mitchell event.
>
> I hope all’s well with you.
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
> PS Britain seems to have found it’s Pat Michaels/Fred Singer/Bob Balling/
> Dick Lindzen. Our population is only 25 % of yours so we only get 1 for
> every 4 you have. His name in case you should come across him is
> Piers Corbyn. He is nowhere near as good as a couple of yours and he’s
> an utter prat but he’s getting a lot of air time at the moment. For his
> day job he teaches physics and astronomy at a University and he predicts
> the weather from solar phenomena. He bets on his predictions months
> ahead for what will happen in Britain. He now believes he knows all
> there is to know about the global warming issue. He’s not all bad as
> he doesn’t have much confidence in nuclear-power safety. Always says
> that at the begining of his interviews to show he’s not all bad !
>
> Cheers Again
>
> Phil
> Dr Phil Jones
> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 ???
> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 ???
> Norwich Email ???@uea.ac.uk
> NR4 7TJ
> UK
> —————————————————————————-
>
>”
This is an example file path, and seems to be endless.
I think that the master file is still in CRU computer systems,
so we have to sort files like I did.
Ilkka.
Richard Sharpe says:
It follows logically from:
47. The provision of the amount of funds to be made available annually to developing country P
——————-
It does not follow logically from. The manner in which the funds are administered is undefined.There are many alternatives by which the funds could be administered and which do not involve the UN in any way.
You are making an assumption.
The latest from the AP:
http://news.yahoo.com/climate-deal-approval-un-conference-190231003.html;_ylt=AtyRQ0hfnZocQSnCozLpfbGs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNsampwMmZxBG1pdANUb3BTdG9yeSBGUARwa2cDODAyYjRhNmQtZmVkNC0zNmIwLWI3MzItMDcxNGEzZWUwY2RiBHBvcwM1BHNlYwN0b3Bfc3RvcnkEdmVyAzBjYzkwZTI2LTIzOTAtMTFlMS05ZGQyLTc4ZTdkMTVkMWM2NA–;_ylg=X3oDMTFvdnRqYzJoBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANob21lBHB0A3NlY3Rpb25zBHRlc3QD;_ylv=3
How do you know you have a consensus if no vote is taken?
Walter H. Schneider says
Par. 47 states a demand
————–
No it’s not that either. It’s in the form of a contract.
So it’s defining the obligations of the signatories of the treaty IF they sign up to the treaty.
So they have started off with a proposed treaty.
There will be negotiations using that as a starting point or the proposed treaty will be rejected as a starting point.
Then after they come to an agreement, after lots of changes, then they might sign it.
You guys get sucked in by headlines every time. You need to ignore the headline, read the actual article and check the primary sources. Well that is what you would do if you were a skeptic.
‘Consensus’ is a term-of-art in climate science. In normal parlance, ‘consensus’ means unanimous support. In climate science, ‘consensus’ means support only from those people who already agree with a particular point of view. Those who disagree are, by definition, explicitly excluded from the consensus. So what this really mean is that the only people who get to decide what’s in the agreement are those who already agree with what’s in the agreement. Everyone else is definitionally excluded.
LazyTeenager says:
December 10, 2011 at 5:02 pm
==============
Care to try again.
There are many families still trying to recover from the last war..
You stupid, young …….
LazyTeenager;
The manner in which the funds are administered is undefined.There are many alternatives by which the funds could be administered and which do not involve the UN in any way.
You are making an assumption.>>>
So, you’re suggesting that the UN is considering collecting $1.3 Trillion from rich countries to give to poor countries, proposing a “world climate court” to enforce the transfer, and it supposed to happen without any UN involvement? Who runs the court? Who collects the money? Who distributes the money? On what basis? According to what rules? Who oversees the whole thing?
Could you propose a plausible mechanism to implement such a scheme that is not centrally run? Can you propose a plausible mechanism that would accomplish these goals without UN involvement and over sight? Can you explain why the UN would propose a vast, wide ranging system based on their rules, their proposals, and their enforcement, which they would then walk away from running?
Who would they turn it over to? Zimbabwe?
Let the imagination wonder at how expansive the definition of “security” can be in the hands of a bureaucrats in constant need of expanded relevance, armed with the force of law.
Then think of your children when reflecting on how we used to be invited to volunteer to recycle, turn off a light when not in use, and lower the thermostat a bit. Funny how “invited to volunteer” has been morphing into “comply or be punished”.
Rothbard saw things clearly. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothbard
“Rothbard advocated abolition of coercive government control of society and the economy. He considered the monopoly force of government the greatest danger to liberty and the long-term well-being of the populace, labeling the State as nothing but a “gang of thieves writ large”—the locus of the most immoral, grasping and unscrupulous individuals in any society.[6][7][8][9]
Rothbard concluded that all services provided by monopoly governments could be provided more efficiently by the private sector. He viewed many regulations and laws ostensibly promulgated for the “public interest” as self-interested power grabs by scheming government bureaucrats engaging in dangerously unfettered self-aggrandizement, as they were not subject to market disciplines.”
Even the psychotic CAGW scientists are not as inane as these blackbeards.
“Therefore, it is foolish to demand that policy makers reduce CO2 to 280 ppm. Indeed, if, with a magic wand, we reduced CO2 from today’s 389 ppm to 280 ppm that change would increase Earth’s heat radiation to space by almost 2 watts (per square meter). The planet would rapidly move toward a colder climate, probably colder than the Little Ice Age. Whoever wielded the magic wand might receive a Middle Ages punishment, such as being drawn and quartered.“ – James Hansen, 2010-12-21 in Conversation with Bill McKibben
I guess for Hansen, no matter what mankind does, it is all world ending disaster.
‘
LazyTeenager says:
December 10, 2011 at 5:02 pm
Lazy, quit babbling.
Hoax my ASS! Check out the preceeding draft 38. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/awglca14/eng/crp38.pdf
Some of the words change, but the thrust is exactly what Lord Monckton warned about. Surely this nonsense will stop given the level of absurdity going on here?
“Alex the skeptic says:
December 10, 2011 at 3:34 pm
According to Monckton, those trillions of dollars would not go direct to the ‘suffering’ nations, but straight to the UN coffers for them to distribute”
Yeah that’s also a big problem and a rort.
The UN has already come under fire / criticized for returning upto 90% of socalled AID Money back into their own coffers as ADMIN Fees. As in the case of E.Timor from memory as an example.