Kumi Brings The Good News

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

I haven’t yet found a copy of whatever agreement they signed at Durban. But thanks to Kumi Naidoo, the radical head of Greenpeace International, I know that there’s nothing to worry about. He’s done the analysis for me.

Figure 1. Kumi Naidoo, Greenpeace International Executive Director PHOTO SOURCE NYT

DURBAN, South-Africa, December 11, 2011/African Press Organization (APO)/ [emphasis mine] — On the closing of the latest round of UN climate talks in Durban Greenpeace today declared that it was clear that our Governments this past two weeks listened to the carbon-intensive polluting corporations instead of listening to the people who want an end to our dependence on fossil fuels and real and immediate action on climate change.

“The grim news is that the blockers lead by the US have succeeded in inserting a vital get-out clause that could easily prevent the next big climate deal being legally binding. If that loophole is exploited it could be a disaster. And the deal is due to be implemented ‘from 2020′ leaving almost no room for increasing the depth of carbon cuts in this decade when scientists say we need emissions to peak,”

said Kumi Naidoo, Greenpeace International Executive Director.

“Right now the global climate regime amounts to nothing more than a voluntary deal that’s put off for a decade. This could take us over the two degree threshold where we pass from danger to potential catastrophe.”

A “voluntary deal that’s put off for a decade” that contains a “vital get-out clause”… as a compromise that works for me. The real threat now is the “Green Carbon Fund”.

I am curious, though, about the location and nature of the “vital get-out clause”, I want to know how that part works for when we need it … reader’s contributions invited. Anyone have a copy of the actual agreement? I heard it was 100 pages long at one point …

Overcast morning here … what a crazy world. It’s Sunday, I’m gonna watch football and hope the sun comes out.

w.

UPDATE: What I think is the final copy of the document is available here.

UPDATE II: How foolish of me not to realize that in the UN system, something only 55 pages long can only be a draft agreement. The actual agreement is 138 pages long, and is here (h/t Fred Berple). It requires  developed countries to

Reduce global greenhouse gas emissions more than 100 per cent by 2040,

Truly, you couldn’t make up useful idiots like the Durban delegates if you tried. Me, I’m shooting for a 137% reduction in global innumeracy …

UPDATE III: Once again, fooled by the UN. That was not the final, final, really final document. What I find for the really final one is here. They’ve removed the requirement to reduce emissions by more than 100%.

Advertisements

149 thoughts on “Kumi Brings The Good News

  1. The Green Carbon Fund
    This is a bureaucrat/consultant/politician’s dream come true. In go thousands of greedy snouts and what little is left of this fund won’t make much impact on a non-existent problem.
    The good guys, like most of us who read WUWT and who actually do something worthwhile and pay taxes (bureaucrats, consultants, politicians and ‘climate scientists’ are specifically excluded here) will have to fund this nonsense.
    The creation of this fund is supposed to give us all a warm fuzzy feeling in being able to support such a ‘noble cause’. As per usual, when this type of fund is created, we all know exactly where the money is going – into the pockets of the least deserving on the planet.

  2. What kind or Orwellian logic makes a deal with a “get out” clause a “good deal”? Why would a country, even the USA, want to subvert a deal that the entire rest of the world has accepted? Who could possibly benefit from such an action?
    Consider the enormous risks Willis, and then ask yourself:” Is it wise to stall actions which can alleviate the risks, which are now clearly identified?”
    REPLY: Consider Pepper, is it wise to toss money to shameless extortionists like the Maldives who build airports and new condos all the while screaming about how their island is sinking and they’ll have to leave as “climate refugees”.
    Are you really that clueless?
    -Anthony

  3. You mean….. you mean that it might be better than we thought?
    Good grief, whatever next.
    I’ll feel better when the mainstream media start to report the actual science, rather than the politically spun stuff they are fed with by Government Press Departments.
    And I have no idea how you get them to do that.

  4. Funny to see how a Postdam invention, the two degree limit to catastrophe, is now accepted as unquestionable dogma

  5. Why is it so difficult to find a copy of this superduper groundbreaking save the planet long live the polies up the whales etc etc agreement?
    If it is indeed, only two pages long, have they cut off all the copiers to save emissions? And the internet?
    Or is it that they need to wait a lonnnnng time before releasing it because the hype does not match the reality and they hope we might have forgotten?

  6. It’s all posturing, when the planet fails to warm because of the negative PDO over the next 20 years and a weak sun they will simply postpone it.

  7. Permit me to more accurately edit that first paragraph…much like the editors of my local newspaper edit private editorial submissions “..for clarity”…
    “On the closing of the latest round of UN climate talks in Durban Greenpeace today declared that it was clear that our Governments this past two weeks listened to the carbon-intensive polluting corporations instead of listening to the people …”
    As usual, we’re taking this out of context. What he REALLY means to say is:
    “On the closing of the latest round of UN climate talks in Durban Greenpeace today declared that it was clear that our Governments this past two weeks listened to the carbon-intensive polluting corporations instead of listening to the investment bankers, politicians looking for more lucrative committee appointments, special interest groups who capitalize on government grants, and speculators with inside knowledge of pending legislation…”
    …..please note: Huge cabals flying off 10,000 conventioneers to the most remote place on earth for a week of talking and lobster is not carbon-intensive polluting.

  8. I will say it here – I was WRONG about the US – if this proves to be fact in the official version then this is virtually a death blow to the AGW movement.

  9. Hugh Pepper says:
    December 11, 2011 at 12:03 pm
    One can always depend on Hugh Pepper to offer some comic relief when the topic is serious.

  10. Hugh Pepper says:
    December 11, 2011 at 12:03 pm
    What kind or Orwellian logic makes a deal with a “get out” clause a “good deal”? Why would a country, even the USA, want to subvert a deal that the entire rest of the world has accepted? Who could possibly benefit from such an action?
    ================================
    I see your point….without the US paying money……no one would benefit

  11. “I am curious, though, about the location and nature of the “vital get-out clause”, I want to know how that part works for when we need it … reader’s contributions invited. Anyone have a copy of the actual agreement? ”
    I heard in a live stream the Indian negotiator accept that participants in a future deal MAY or MAY NOT make it legally binding (as far as I understood the legalese – her English was fine but of course it was UN-speak). After that, everybody was happy that they now knew what to agree on and had a chance to leave that desolate hall; further complications ensued and it dragged on and on and I quit watching but that was “the vital get-out clause”.
    In other words, when they congregate again next year they can all agree on doing nothing, with the option of doing something.

  12. @ Latimer Alder
    There’s a bit more detail in this article:
    http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2011/12/20111210201555253969.html#.TuQZ9t9CBqg.reddit
    IMHO the choice quote that should relieve your confusion about a lack of a paper you can read is:
    “However, key components of Sunday’s accord remain to be hammered out, and observers say the task will be arduous. Thorny issues include the still-undefined legal status of the accord and apportioning cuts on emissions among rich and poor countries.”

  13. Hugh Pepper says:
    December 11, 2011 at 12:03 pm
    “Consider the enormous risks Willis, and then ask yourself:” Is it wise to stall actions which can alleviate the risks, which are now clearly identified?””
    Winter nights might be getting warmer. Oh the humanity!

  14. Dear Me… surely Mr. Bernancki (?sp) can print some more US worthless funds to support a few more free loaders…… heaven help us I would dearly love to see the entire UN ediface sink under the waves asap!

  15. Ryan says:
    December 11, 2011 at 12:44 pm

    @ Latimer Alder
    There’s a bit more detail in this article:

    Kinda depressing that Al Jazeera has the in-depth article.
    I’m still real real curious, though … where is this stinkin’ agreement to be found? What did they agree to?
    w.

  16. The next ten years will likely be critical to the AGW movement. If they can force large cuts in carbon dioxide emissions and the World does not warm, they will be in a position to say: see we saved you.
    If, however, they get no significant carbon cuts and the World does not warm, then their credibility will be shot.
    Of course, if the World does warm significantly in the next ten years, with or without emissions cuts, then …

  17. i heard a neologism come out of durban – ‘expectation gap’
    (if not a neologism, for sure it’s a euphemism for fail)

  18. A Canadian Perspective.
    Why sign a deal if there is no up side for the signer? I don’t know yet what was in the “deal” (a deal presumes a give and take) and I don’t know if Canada’s envoy actually signed anything. I don’t know if an agreement was tabled and a simple majority at the UN ratified it. I just don’t know.
    What I do know so far is that Kyoto is dead and there are no obligations extending it from the chatter at Durban. Yes, yes,the AGW alarmists say there was a deal but I don’t see anything that represents a deal to me. You must understand that the UN HAD to have something to say after no agreement was made… even if it was an agreement to talk, which is more or less what happened at Durban from what I can gather.
    So… a big fat yawn.
    What is mistaken as life in the corpse of the AGW advocates is actually the maggots and vermin animating the putrefaction so as to simulate a kind of life.
    Here is a video of UN delegates feasting on the whats left of the global warming scam.:

    At 3:30, you can see the animated carcass moving, just like the UN moved at Durban.

  19. “I’m still real real curious, though … where is this stinkin’ agreement to be found? What did they agree to?”
    Why should they show it to you. You’d only try to find something wrong with it.

  20. Hugh Pepper says:
    December 11, 2011 at 12:03 pm

    What kind or Orwellian logic makes a deal with a “get out” clause a “good deal”?

    Thanks, Hugh. It depends on the deal, not on either Orwell or logic. A bad deal with a get-out clause is a good deal.

    Why would a country, even the USA, want to subvert a deal that the entire rest of the world has accepted?

    Because it’s a bad deal.

    Who could possibly benefit from such an action?

    The US, the poor of the world, right-thinking people everywhere, and even you. Everyone benefits except those making money off the carbon scam … which includes far too many of the Durban delegates and attendees.

    Consider the enormous risks Willis, and then ask yourself:” Is it wise to stall actions which can alleviate the risks, which are now clearly identified?”

    I have considered the risks quite deeply. Suppose we get 2°C of temperature rise over the next 100 years. The latest “BEST” temperature figures (if you believe them) say we’ve seen that same rise, 2°C, over the last 200 years.
    Until you can show me the “enormous risk” in the 2°C rise in the last 200 years, I fear you can’t convince me of the “enormous risk” of your claim that it will rise another 2°C in the future.
    Finally, what action are you proposing to “alleviate the risks”? Nothing that anyone has proposed to date will have the slightest effect on the risks. Kyoto has proven that quite clearly.
    So yes, in answer to your question, it is always wise to stall futile, meaningless, expensive actions which can do nothing alleviate the risks, even if those risks were real.
    The idea that an energy tax, a hugely regressive tax which hits the poor the hardest, should be imposed in order to line the pockets of wealthy third world despots and scam artists is so bizarre that one wonders about the sanity of the folks espousing it …
    w.

  21. Those poor buggers have to organize themselves another junket. I’m sure glad it’s them and not me, must be tough.

  22. The paint is peeling on my old Honda…
    and I’m sure it’s caused from global warming climate changing acid rain.!!
    “Damn the Western World !!” ,
    “They surely owe me a new paint job.!!”
    Am I covered under the new Durban Agreement ?

  23. “Right now the global climate regime amounts to nothing more than a voluntary deal that’s put off for a decade. This could take us over the two degree threshold where we pass from danger to potential catastrophe.”

    Look, I am just about fed up with this sort of talk because it is absolutely untrue. It would not in any way, shape, or form be a “catastrophe”. This guy has no understanding of the CO2 scrubbing capacity of the atmosphere. He probably has never heard of the Azolla event where Earth’s atmosphere went from ~3500ppm to ~650ppm in about 600k years and it was all apparently by the action of a single plant.
    The absolute root of all of this is the nonsensical belief that climate is naturally stable. It is not, has never been, and over the past few million years has been the most unstable it has ever been in the history of the planet that we know of so far. Pleistocene was a period of the most unstable climate in the planet’s history with absolutely wild changes in climate over very short periods of time.
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/65_Myr_Climate_Change.png
    There will be no “climate catastrophe”. The Earth can very easily tolerate a doubling of CO2 from today’s levels due to the current configuration of the continents and ocean circulation patterns. There were three things that prevented the Earth from cooling much until rather recently in geological history:
    1. Drakes Passage being closed preventing a circular current in the Southern Ocean.
    2. No deep connection between the Arctic Sea and either Atlantic or Pacific.
    3. No isthmus of Panama blocking an equatorial exchange of water from Atlantic and Pacific.
    Through most of its history, Earth has been much warmer than it is now. During the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) we saw an absolute skyrocketing of atmospheric carbon and an immediate spike up in temperatures. During this period, mammals exploded and began to spread across the continents and primates begin to thrive. Within about 120K years, atmospheric carbon (and temperatures) were back to their pre-event levels. Earth responds very well to increases in carbon in the atmosphere and scrubs it out pretty quickly. That is because it is a NUTRIENT and not a poison.
    This “movement” is based on several fallacies:
    1. Climate is naturally stable. It is not. It varies dramatically on very short timescales.
    2. Humans are having a large impact on the global climate system. We are not. We ARE changing the local climate in many locations due to deforestation, agriculture, damming of rivers, irrigation, etc. but there is to date no idea that people are making any overall change to the global climate system. Any such change would be reflected in ocean temperature changes in the abyssal deep as that is our long-term average thermometer. And we can’t start measuring today and get any idea of where we are relative to the past, either, because we would have no recent high-resolution context in which to place those measurements.
    I see absolutely no evidence that we are having any accelerating increase in temperatures. Temperatures have been rising at about the same rate for the past 150 years as we have recovered from the Little Ice Age which was the coldest period in the Holocene since the Younger Dryas. Anyone wanting to claim climate stability should explain that to the farmers who lost everything in Greenland during the LIA.
    They claim rising temperatures will cause drought and desert expansion when we know that is not true. When the temperature of the Earth increases, the Intertropical Convergence Zone migrates Northward in response. This brings rains to places like the Sahara and the Levant and increases the duration of the monsoon in places like India. Temperatures started cooling about 5000 years ago and the ITCZ moved South. In response, places like Jordon became desert. The level of the Dead Sea dropped nearly 50 meters.
    This issue is about money and about how smaller third-world despots can charge larger countries rent for the atmosphere.
    This is about instilling fear of climate change in people and using that as justification to extract billions of dollar for paying themselves and engaging in their world socialist “redistribution of wealth”.
    At first it was “global warming” then it was “climate change” then it was “climate disruption” but now it is “climate justice”. It is as if they believe that if they just shovel money to poor countries and inhibit economic activity in rich ones,
    The test of this would be to see if they would adopt the following:
    Rich countries will send some cash to poor countries.
    Rich countries must reduce their CO2 emission rate.
    Poor countries must maintain their CO2 emission rate at current levels with no increase.
    They will never accept that third provision. They will say that it is impossible to grow their economy without increasing CO2 emissions because it takes some unit increase in energy consumption to raise economic output. By the same token, when you enforce a CO2 reduction on the “rich” countries, you are enforcing economic downturn.
    This is a total and complete farce. It is theft. It is a sham. It is a lie.
    How much would WWF make if they didn’t have this issue? Would Tyndall Centre at UEA exist without this issue? Would the IPCC and the UNFCCC exist without this issue? This issue lines the pockets of thousands of people through careers built on “fighting” an issue that is created out of thin air.
    I believe I know why they want to wait until 2020 for Kyoto2. That is because by then it is likely that we will see even further divergence from and a complete discrediting of the IPCCs AR4, the GISS and CRU climate model projections, and the sea level rise scare. By 2020, I am fairly well certain, we will see such a wide divergence between the observations and those projections as to completely discredit them once and for all.
    And Kumi KNOWS it! And this is why he is desperate to get agreements made now that can not be backed out of when the truth becomes obvious. 10 years from now this issue is going to be either a laughing stock or the largest international criminal tribunal in history to rival Nuremberg. The amount of money these people have stolen makes it the largest heist in the history of the world.

  24. Curiousgeorge says:
    December 11, 2011 at 12:10 pm
    “Would you buy a used car from this man?”
    No, I wouldn’t. I would, however, expect that he’d like for me to pay him for it, whether I bought it or not.

  25. Willis, the disagreers agrred to extend their disagreement to 2015, during which time they hope to find solid ground upon which they wouldbe able to xtend their disagreement till 2020, by which time, all those government and UN climate-change delegates getting 6-figure salaries would reach their pensionable age and thus save their personal planet from change in climate-chane politics. And the devil takes the hindmost

  26. Willis Eschenbach says:
    December 11, 2011 at 1:09 pm
    The idea that an energy tax, a hugely regressive tax which hits the poor the hardest, should be imposed in order to line the pockets of wealthy third world despots and scam artists is so bizarre that one wonders about the sanity of the folks espousing it …
    =======================================================
    amen…………..

  27. It’s not all that unusual for Al Jazeera to have the most unbiased take on news nowadays. The official US line about AJ has always been false.
    The Arab world has its own biases, but it’s generally free from our particular censorships and orthodoxies.

  28. How is one supposed to find out whar deal was made when the BBC prints reactions only from:
    * Christiana Figueres, UN Framework Convention on Climate Change executive secretary
    * Connie Hedegaard, EU climate commissioner
    * Chris Huhne, UK energy and climate secretary
    * Tosi Mpanu-Mpanu, head of the Africa group
    * US climate envoy Todd Stern
    * Kumi Naidoo, Greenpeace International
    * Celine Charveriat, Oxfam
    * Mohamed Adow, Christian Aid
    * Sarah-Jayne Clifton, Friends of the Earth International
    * Alden Meyer, Union of Concerned Scientists
    No bias there, then. Bah!
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16129762

  29. Not sure if this is off topic but….
    In my vision of enforcing this new agreement, the saying “Hell freezes over” comes to mind…
    Question….
    Now when Hell freezes over…
    Does that lower the sea level ?

  30. Maybe Anthony should apply to the Gillard government in Australia for the latest job I saw in the paper on the weekend. Climate advisor, $90 to $120K + $25K expenses. The advise he could give would be worth all that and more.

  31. Greenpeace and the other big green NGO’s are not friends to humanity or the environment. They are in it for themselves.
    Kumi and pals will demonstrate this more clearly as their plans to exploit AGW continue to fail.

  32. I added a link to the text above. It’s 55 pages. They’ve decided to have some workshops. Here’s how they put it:

    The Conference of Parties …
    33. Decides to continue in 2012 workshops, in a structured manner, to further the understanding of the diversity of mitigation actions as communicated and contained in FCCC/AWGLCA/2011/INF.1, underlying assumptions and any support needed for the implementation of these actions, noting different national circumstances and the respective capabilities of developing country Parties;

    Could someone please put these people out of their misery? What on earth are these fools agreeing to? No one knows, that statement is so vague as to be meaningless.
    w.

  33. I hear, yet again, the clarion call for a new world order: absolute authority in any sphere. History’s lessons notwithstanding, when one social paradigm is waning, when climate change goes the way of the Worker’s Party, another social imperative arises, similar in concept: increase the apparent size of democratic guilt, and, by the way, giving. And to what end? Change the leadership of The Elite; just replacing the head on the statue in the town park, with another. The social change device is always in evolution, the objective is the same. “We are marching on to Pretoria.”

  34. An entirely premature analysis, Willis!
    If Greenpeace, the WWF, the IPCC, the UN plus throw the CRU Team in there as well as a possibility, the “Final Draft Agreement” is still being drafted long after all the major participants have agreed to the “Final Draft” and gone home.
    Like the IPCC Assessment Reports, the Durban Final Draft Agreement might come as a surprise to most participants who thought they had agreed to something a whole lot different.
    This is Global Warming and Climate Change politics after all so the spin and smoke and mirrors and stench are all deeply ingrained!

  35. I just checked the Eureka weather and it’s -38C in the “melting Arctic”. I hope the Durban agreement doesn’t cause it to cool further. Now I’m waiting for our Greenie Canadian Member of Parliament (accredited to Papua/New Guinea in an act of treason) to paddle her dugout canoe back to Canada from South Africa – I hope she doesn’t make it in time for the next election.

  36. Willis Eschenbach says:
    December 11, 2011 at 1:41 pm
    The Conference of Parties …
    I first read that as “The Conference of Pirates …”.
    Same thing really.

  37. Why is there no discussion from these “earth savers” just how we are supposed to end our “dependence on fossil fuels.”? Fossil fuels, not only are used for fuel, but as a base or key ingredient in untold thousands of products. Just about everything you touch has a fossil fuel connection and they are going to END all this??? It’s beyond insanity.

  38. Willis Eschenbach quotes:
    December 11, 2011 at 1:41 pm
    “The Conference of Parties …
    33. Decides to continue in 2012 workshops, in a structured manner, to further the understanding of the diversity of mitigation actions as communicated and contained in FCCC/AWGLCA/2011/INF.1, underlying assumptions and any support needed for the implementation of these actions, noting different national circumstances and the respective capabilities of developing country Parties;”
    Well, the Maldives need to build luxury vacation homes for rich foreigners and to build eleven new regional airports. So, their mitigation actions will be far different from those of other countries. No doubt some other country will need to build the world’s largest mosque at sea level so that citizens can spend as much time as possible praying for mitigation. Of course, there will be much theoretical discussion of underlying assumptions and any support needed for implementation of these mitigation actions. /sarc

  39. Hi crosspatch
    interesting would be, according to your opinion, the process of as you put it:
    ” The complete discrediting of the IPCCs AR4, the GISS and CRU climate model projections, and the sea level rise scare. By 2020, I am fairly well certain, we will see such a wide divergence between the observations and those projections as to completely discredit them once and for all.”
    Give a few clues of what we can expect during 2017 – 2019, before 2020, and how these guys will finally leave the stage……

  40. Scott says:
    December 11, 2011 at 12:18 pm
    Is it cold in Durban? Look at the jacket.
    72 f, which is average this time of year, according to Accuweather.

  41. The grim news is that the blockers lead by the US …
    [emphasis added]

    Am I the last English speaker who knows the past tense of lead is led? I have noticed the miss-usage so often recently that what what was simply an irritation has become an inflammation, then an open wound and packed in salt.

  42. Let us hope that when, as and if this idiocy comes up in the U.S. Senate for ratification enough of us will contact our Senators and remind them that we are still allowed to vote against them. Just in case anyone isn’t getting the point: until and unless a treaty – whether bilateral or multilateral – is ratified by the U.S. Senate, it has no legal effect in the U.S. No matter how many times the President signs it. No matter how many folks run around screaming that the sky is falling. And just to drive the point home for the genuinely mis-informed, any international agreement requires such approval, no matter if every other nation on the planet signed the treaty and ratified it according to their own laws. Without the ratification of the U.S. Senate, it has no legal effect within the U.S.

  43. I got worse news for you, Kumi. This has absolutely zero chance of passing the Senate as a treaty and less than zero if presented as a budgetary item in the House.

  44. Hugh Pepper says:
    December 11, 2011 at 12:03 pm
    ‘Consider the enormous risks Willis, and then ask yourself:” Is it wise to stall actions which can alleviate the risks, which are now clearly identified?”’
    Hugh, if Jehovah exists and you are not a Christian then you face an eternity in Hell. Have I convinced you to become a Christian? No? What about the risk of infinite torment?

  45. crosspatch says:
    December 11, 2011 at 1:17 pm
    One of the better rants I think I have ever read. I.m putting this zinger into the pot for “quote of the year”:
    “This issue is about money and about how smaller third-world despots can charge larger countries rent for the atmosphere.”
    You tore me from the frame with that one.

  46. Willis Eschenbach says:
    December 11, 2011 at 12:55 pm
    > Kinda depressing that Al Jazeera has the in-depth article.
    My wife has been spending more and more time there. It used to be, back when I was a kid, I could read US news and then get a better take on things from BBC on my shortwave radio. Merging the two would give me a decent idea of what was happening and what was more important to different countries. (I managed to pick up Radio Moscow’s English language broadcast briefly one day and learned more about propaganda in 30 seconds than I ever did in school!)
    The Beeb has lost its way, and I’ve sort of replaced them with The Christian Science Monitor, figuring they may have the resources to keep going for a while.
    Al Jazeera, with it’s worldwide demographic, may be doing a good job reporting the news without a militant Islamic coating. I’m not sure how much international news they report and how much they steal, but I think they generally have links back to the sources they use.

  47. Willis Eschenbach;
    Could someone please put these people out of their misery?>>>
    If one stops to think about it, what better outcome could we have possibly hoped for?
    It seems to me that some fairly pragmatic politicians have suckered the green movement this time around. The major players for the most part sent token delegations with nothing in the way of authority to negotiate, just a free license to spout green propoganda. Their plan seems to have been clear in my mind.
    On the one hand, the politicians could tell their consituents at home that they tried as hard as they could, so as not to lose the green vote. Every country has multiple other countries to blame for not reaching a deal. By not committing to a deal, those same politicians get to keep their skeptic voters, without having to publicly denounce CAGW. In other words, they arranged for an innefective negotiation doomed to failure that they can blame on others, while doing exactly what they know they should do, which is nothing. But they get to keep their cloak of political correctness while doing nothing. Genius!
    But the best part is that without any serious intention to get much of anything done, the green hoards were left to run amok. In a frenzy of confirmation bias, they actually convinced themselves that world disarmament to fight global warming was possible to achieve just by getting everyone to agree to do it. They actually convinced themselves that they could get world governments to submit to a world “climate court” that would have the power to levy monstrous fines against industrious nations for the sin of being industrious. They actually convinced themselves that they could extort money from the first world to be given, not to the third world, but to themselves, despute their track record of having mispent and squandered the billions they have been given for other causes such as world hunger.
    The greens were sent to Durban with no authoritym and no controls on what they said to who. They made total and complete fools of themselves while pigging out at the public trough, came up with draconian proposals that are unenforceable, unpractical, and unrealistic for any democracy to sign. Durban did more to discredit the green movement, WWF, Greenpiece, and their ilk than any other event in recent memory, and they doomed any global action on climate change in the process.

  48. Willis your link to the 56 page document is a draft not the final text. unless it was adopted as is.
    what one needs to do is compare it with whatever is the official text. I had a quick look through it and fail to find anything that resembles what the chairperson was quoted as saying in the press or at the conference. However that may be me not understanding the literary drivel that is UN speak.

  49. JustMEinT Musings says:
    December 11, 2011 at 12:54 pm
    Dear Me… surely Mr. Bernancki (?sp) can print some more US worthless funds to support a few more free loaders……
    If those dollars Congress allows Bernake to print are so worthless, why is it that all the freeloaders covet them?
    Think carefully…

  50. He probably has never heard of the Azolla event where Earth’s atmosphere went from ~3500ppm to ~650ppm in about 600k years and it was all apparently by the action of a single plant.

    Well, I haven’t heard of the Azolla event.
    But a quick search over the internet seems to indicate that:

    The event coincides precisely with a catastrophic decline in carbon dioxide levels, which fell from 3500 ppm in the early Eocene to 650 ppm during this event.
    This drop initiated the switch from a greenhouse to the current icehouse Earth ; the Arctic cooled from an average sea-surface temperature of 13 °C to today’s −9 °C,

    So, 22 °C drop caused by a decline of CO2 levels from 3500 ppm to 650 ppm is not a bit too much?

  51. That looks like a Somali “seaman” of the sort you’d not want to meet on the high seas.
    Oh well, we’ll see what kind of parties they have next year in Qatar.

  52. When will the green simpletons realize that decreasing temperatures do NOT constitute warming.
    The true denialism is not with the skeptics, it’s with the clowns who simply think money should be thrown at them for coming up with a fairly flimsy fantasy.
    Any bets on how many more COP’s there will be. The site is easy – it should be a camp put in the middle of a UK wind farm at this time of year. There’s be half a chance that they would have snow to deal with as well as the womp-womp-womp of the wind turbines. Maybe they could dance to the beat.
    Having been to the wind turbines on Vinalhaven, ME there is no doubt that I would oppose any and all such idiotic devices. On Vinalhaven they are end-user situated and simply decrease the island’s grip usage; that’s a good thing. However, there are no sites that are not near homes and the effects are reported regularly.

  53. Hugh Pepper says:
    December 11, 2011 at 12:03 pm

    What kind or Orwellian logic makes a deal with a “get out” clause a “good deal”? Why would a country, even the USA, want to subvert a deal that the entire rest of the world has accepted? Who could possibly benefit from such an action?

    Sorry, the United States approved the “historic document” too. My guess is that there are several other countries interested in the same escape clause. Also, keep in mind that the delegates at Durban didn’t all represent the interests of their countries, many were representing NGOs who managed to wrangle a seat on various countries delegations. Few, if any, represented my interests.
    Up here in New Hampshire, I have a vested interest in converting natural gas into heat and greenhouse gases each winter. Sadly, the GHGs never seem to come through for me. Fortunately, the cost of natural gas keep dropping from its year-before figure.

  54. “cui bono says:
    December 11, 2011 at 1:28 pm
    How is one supposed to find out whar deal was made when the BBC prints reactions only from:”
    Bishop Hill today has released a report “CONSPIRACY IN GREEN”, which tells the story of this emerging bias, along with his (and others) attempts to uncover it. I would recommend people fork out the GBP 0.75 ($1.20) for the download.

  55. I think the get out clause may be that they refer to the …”science, as documented in the FAR”….

  56. Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn’t Kumi also the guy who delivered that ‘we know where you [skeptics] live’ threat?

  57. Blimey, I have never read 56 pages of text of such low informal and actionable content density in my life …
    I recognize that the outcome of the work of the AWG-LCA in the form of the draft conclusions proposed by the chair (FCCC/AWGLCA/2011/L.4 pages 1 to 56 inclusive) to be a Brobdingnagian scale squandering of time and money.
    Further I request that the planned eighteenth session, including all workshops, working groups, committees, sessions, meetings, forums, breakfasts, lunches, dinners, dances and conferences be completely abolished in their entirety and funding of said prior referenced workshops, working groups, committees, sessions, meetings, forums, breakfasts, lunches, dinners, dances and conferences be returned to the original contributing parties in proportion to the original contributing funds in a form ready convertible to the currency of the country of origin (or legal registration) of the original contributing party in each case and without exception.

  58. gofer says:
    December 11, 2011 at 2:03 pm
    “Why is there no discussion from these “earth savers” just how we are supposed to end our “dependence on fossil fuels.”?”
    Yes. Well. Let’s agree to talk about that in 2021. In the meantime, at least they used the word “dependence” instead of “addiction,” their usual brain-freezing bad-as-possible sounding term.
    You know. Like our addiction to food.

  59. If this is true, I have only one word: YES!
    GreenPeace is nothing more than a lobby group who will sell its support to the highest bidder. Just ask Dr. Patrick Moore, ecologist and co-founder of GreenPeace. Or, the Chinese Communist government. How do you think GreenPeace got access to China? That’s right kids, by being party shills.

  60. gofer says:
    December 11, 2011 at 2:03 pm
    absolutely – but try getting greenpeece (say it with a mexican accent) or any of the tree hugging d*ckwads to agree to nuclear power, which is the only alternative to fossil fuels ‘on demand’ as ready to roll power generation! Muppets the lot of ’em – but I bet they all rely on their bleedin blackberries to tweet each other! aaaargh….I get so mad………..

  61. I’ve worked as a public servant. The most incomprehensible documents are always prepared by committees that seem to take endless pleasure reassurring the members that they actually have half a brain by producing endless reams of meaningless drivel full of repetitive nonsense such as “mission statements” incorporating the views of all “stakeholders”.
    Most of the verbage is meaningless gobbledygook – so why should we be surprised that the produce reams of documents instead of saying “we can’t agree – even to disagree”.

  62. @gofer says:
    December 11, 2011 at 2:03 pm
    “Why is there no discussion from these “earth savers” just how we are supposed to end our “dependence on fossil fuels.”? Fossil fuels, not only are used for fuel, but as a base or key ingredient in untold thousands of products. Just about everything you touch has a fossil fuel connection and they are going to END all this??? It’s beyond insanity.”
    ======================================================================
    No, no, no! You don’t get it all. We’re supposed to end our dependence on fossil fuels. They are exempt.
    Got it?

  63. Hey Hugh Pepper,
    You appear to know a lot about climate disruption.Please show us what convinced you that there is really a problem with man’s CO2? I have looked for years and have never found evidence that man’s CO2 is causing climate disruption.
    Please share your evidence with us.
    (Please note that correlation is NOT causation. Computer models are NOT reality. And the leading climate scientists have been lying to us.)
    Thanks
    JK

  64. crosspatch says:
    December 11, 2011 at 1:17 pm
    1. Climate is naturally stable. It is not. It varies dramatically on very short timescales.
    I would suggest that while the climate is not statically stable, for as near as we can tell the geologic evidence is that the climate is dynamically stable since we keep returning to ice ages as one limit and have not lost our atmosphere as evidence that we have not come close to the other. All in all the dynamic stablilty seems pretty good to me.
    Otherwise your points are well taken and I, like you, am tired of the drag on real economic progress these people represent.

  65. davidmhoffer says:
    December 11, 2011 at 2:42 pm
    “It seems to me that some fairly pragmatic politicians have suckered the green movement this time around. ”
    It only seems so. The Green movement is financed by Soros, Rockefeller, the EU commission, and do the bidding of their masters. This time, the masters had no interest in masses of Greenshirts yelling and storming the conference centre. Why not? Well, CAGW seems to have outlived its usefulness.
    I expect a certain decline in funding for the climate scientists next. CAGW will be put out of its misery. Romm and the others will be assigned to new worthy causes.

  66. It was somewhat amusing watching their “overtime” session yesterday. Clearly, some delegates didn’t know exactly what was in “the package” they were approving.
    Willis, thanks for the link to the [presumed?!] package. For those who want to see the final spin Press Release, it seems to be available here.
    Some highlights (or lowlights, depending on one’s perspective):

    The package includes the Green Climate Fund, an Adaptation Committee designed to improve the coordination of adaptation actions on a global scale, and a Technology Mechanism, which are to become fully operational in 2012 (see below for details).
    Whilst pledging to make progress in a number of areas, governments acknowledged the urgent concern that the current sum of pledges to cut emissions both from developed and developing countries is not high enough to keep the global average temperature rise below two degrees Celsius.
    They therefore decided that the UN Climate Change process shall increase ambition to act and will be led by the climate science in the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report and the global Review from 2013-2015.
    “While it is clear that these deadlines must be met, countries, citizens and businesses who have been behind the rising global wave of climate action can now push ahead confidently, knowing that Durban has lit up a broader highway to a low-emission, climate resilient future,” said the UNFCCC Executive Secretary.

  67. ‘Gary Turner says:
    December 11, 2011 at 2:30 pm
    The grim news is that the blockers lead by the US …
    [emphasis added]
    Am I the last English speaker who knows the past tense of lead is led? I have noticed the miss-usage so often recently that what what was simply an irritation has become an inflammation, then an open wound and packed in salt.’
    No, you are not . I was scrolling down to say the same thing when I saw your comment, which reassured me that I wasn’t the only one who despairs of this persistent ignorance (and it doesn’t only apply to alarmists I’m afraid). The same could be said of ‘loose’ used for ‘lose’.

  68. I’ve read quite a few comments of people pulling out their hair over the durban ‘agreement’ or whatever it is being called.
    In reality – it’s nothing. It’s meaningless – just a lot of empty words put down on a piece of paper that nobody has really agreed to, and that has no legal basis anywhere in the world.
    For my exhibit A, I present the Copenhagen Accord, or whatever that was called. It was negotiated into being by none other than newly-minted Noble prize winner Barack Obama in person. And yet, just 2 years down the track – does anyone refer to it? NO.
    For my exhibit B, I present the original Kyoto Protocol, which was agreed to by the USA but never ratified. Sure, the EU went for it and have suffered as a result (funny how the ECB bailout funds almost match the size of the Kyoto payments, but I digress) but – after Kyoto expiration very soon, it hasn’t changed anything, really, and was never going to be replaced.
    So I wouldn’t be too worried – they couldn’t spend all this time and money and have nothing to show for it but some hangovers and rich prostitutes and limo drivers. So they trot out some agreement which talks about maybe agreeing to something in 4 years time and then maybe agreeing to something more in 9 years time. Of course Greenpeace and WWF are outraged – that’s their professional duty – to be outraged at anything that isn’t communal living in mud huts surrounded by lentil fields and campfire singing.
    I do wish that representatives of big-talking Canada and no-talking USA had quietly pushed back harder, but then, what’s the point in making a target of yourself when your opposition is busy firing at their own feet?
    Durban is just another pause on the inexorable and inevitable decline of carbon pricing and worldwide governance. In another 4 years the elections cycles of all the worlds big democracies will have churned over once more and the last vestiges of carbon-lovin’ governments will gradually be cleaned from house as the voters show them the door.

  69. “This could take us over the two degree threshold where we pass from danger to potential catastrophe.”
    According to my team of scientists, however, it is “highly likely” that we would instead pass from the danger presented by cooling, toward more closely approaching maximal conditions for the survival of Humanity. And even a Heaven on Earth Utopia! [personal communication]

  70. Well, it looks like a Green Fund SHOULD be (not WILL be) set up paid for partly by shipping and aviation levies.
    No agreement on how much, when and how this could possibly be instigated. Just plans to LOOK at it:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8948920/Durban-climate-change-last-minute-talks-produce-historic-deal-to-save-the-planet.html
    I seem to recall the same statements made at Copenhagen:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6811881/Copenhagen-support-for-a-global-tax-on-shipping-and-aviation-grows.html
    Wonder how much LOOKING into this we will be still doing at the next climate bunfight?
    Also wonder if Wilbur and Orville Wright needed 15,000 bureaucrats to tell them to LOOK into powered flight or did they JUST DO IT? And was aviation told to go forth and multiply or did it evolve spontaneously through military and commercial competition?
    I suspect that whatever replaces fossil fuels will do the same.

  71. Given this recent (today) announcement from the OECD, I think we can safely assume that NO MONEY will be forthcoming anytime soon.
    From: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4e0a21fc-2261-11e1-acdc-00144feabdc0.html
    OECD warns on global funding struggle
    By David Oakley in London
    Markets and governments face an uphill struggle to fund themselves next year amid extreme uncertainty over the eurozone and the global economy, as new figures reveal that the borrowing of industrialised governments has surged beyond $10tr this year and is forecast to grow further in 2012.
    The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which represents the leading industrialised nations, will warn in its latest borrowing outlook, due to be published this month, that financial stresses are likely to continue with the “animal spirits” of the markets – their unpredictable nature – a threat to the stability of many governments that need to refinance debt.

  72. here’s the CFR weighing in:
    “It’s also worth taking a step back to look at the broader contours of the talks. It is distressing to see how much attention has become devoted to form rather than function. The fact that people are so are fixated on the future of Kyoto and the potential for a new legally binding treaty – neither of which, depending on its specific content, need have any impact on emissions – is extraordinary. It is particularly worrying that so many parties were willing in Durban to risk their real substantive progress because they could not agree on what are, in practice, largely symbolic matters. Congratulations are in order to those diplomats who found a face saving way for everyone to back down so that they could consolidate important incremental advances that they had made elsewhere. But the Durban outcome does not auger a “remarkable new phase” in the climate talks. Its most celebrated elements largely mask dysfunction as usual.”
    http://blogs.cfr.org/levi/2011/12/11/a-misplaced-climate-celebration-in-durban/
    this is the conclusion of a long post by their climate guy. there were agreements made (climate fund etc.) which are incremental. But that’s a worrying thing. Incrementalism has a way of working out rather poorly for dynamic, decentralized societies. So I guess I’m happy that all the right people are unhappy…but they tend to be the hard core ‘I want it now’ folks. I’m not expecting this to disappear. We can laugh about the stupidities of the young woman saying that she represents half the world’s population, before doing a mic check, and the people who write this twaddle:
    “The Climate Action Tracker estimates that global mean warming would reach about 3.5°C by 2100 with the current reduction proposals on the table. They are definitely insufficient to limit temperature increase to 2°C.”
    but, let’s not celebrate, they are still capable of grinding it out.
    http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/12/10/386824/durban-updates-final-hours-of-negotiation/
    http://thinkprogress.org/green/2011/12/10/386944/speaking-on-behalf-of-half-the-worlds-population-youth-delegate-mic-checks-climate-summit-to-get-it-done/

  73. @ Urederra “The event coincides precisely with a catastrophic decline in carbon dioxide levels, which fell from 3500 ppm in the early Eocene to 650 ppm during this event.
    This drop initiated the switch from a greenhouse to the current icehouse Earth ; the Arctic cooled from an average sea-surface temperature of 13 °C to today’s −9 °C,”
    If true, I would think that the CAGW crowd would find this wonderfully, enormously, extraordinarily, encouraging! Doesn’t that say that with 650 ppm, the Arctic SST was the same as today? Isn’t that good news? The climate is not so sensitive as was thought, we are not on the edge of a tipping point, in fact we are over 250 ppm away. We do not have to worry about catastrophic changes until AT LEAST 650 ppm is exceeded. Yippee! Spread the good news! Armageddon has been delayed a century or two!

  74. @Hugh Pepper says:
    December 11, 2011 at 12:03 pm
    Heh. I see you don’t have any business experience. Any good contract should have a “force majeure” provision, at least, to stop joint ventures (and this agreement is just that) and let parties change or terminate the contract. For example, what if the “world average temperature” starts plummeting tomorrow morning and continues on for the next ten years? Do we just blindly move forward spending billions? Another out is implicit in this thing – the United States Senate is never going to agree to it, no matter how our “representative” to this thing kicks and screams (I suspect that applies to most other nations too, but who knows?). This “agreement” is no more than an advance invitation to the next orgy. Let’s see now, they haven’t been to Dubrovnik or Perth (WA) or many other party spots. I think they now have a ten-year planning horizon.

  75. This climate justice seems like a real fine idea. how do we tax paying citizens go about bringing these scam artists to justice? Should Canada set aside an area of land for the climate criminals to demonstrate their intellectual purity by living a carbon free lifestyle?

  76. This just in, after extensive study a scientific consensus has been reached, Hemoglobin has been determined to contribute to Catastrophic Climate Change. It has been agreed that all future use of Hemoglobin will be restricted with the Planet Saving Goal of reducing all use of Hemoglobin by 50% before 2120.
    A further goal of eliminating Hemoglobin from all human systems by 2150 has been agreed to. Further, an International Hemoglobin Court WILL BE be created to eliminate ANY FUTURE USE of Hemoglobin in any way, shape or form after 2150, or maybe 2153, or if we can’t all agree to the date then 2162, but at the very very least 2372, unless we can’t all reconcile our calendars to meet in a nice warm tropical place for 2 or 3 weeks to eat all those delectable species that will, I repeat, will most definitely disappear within a decade (or so) of our next meeting. You must of course see clearly that it is critical that we conclude these confabs BEFORE all the really tasty food becomes extinct………..
    Cheers, Kevin.

  77. @crosspatch says:
    December 11, 2011 at 1:17 pm
    Wow, thanks for that mention of the Azolla Event. I’m sorry to say, I’d never heard of it, but on quick reading it seems at least a plausible – perhaps significant – contributor to the tremendous change in the Earth’s atmosphere and climatic environment over the last 50 million years. We went from 3500 ppm CO2 to 650 ppm, and the temperature fell something like 22 deg. C, among other things (lots of plate tectonics movements and new seaways formed, at the least), and glaciers waxed and waned on huge scale. The wiki article and this one:
    http://www.azimuthproject.org/azimuth/show/Azolla+event
    have some interesting graphs and links. It appears we have many degrees to add to this frigid ball before there is any danger of Antarctica melting away. And in fact, we’re so low on the CO2 scale today that plant life is threatened. Maybe we should have an Endangered Plant Species Act aimed at getting CO2 back to around 1000 ppm. 1000 PPM or BUST! PLANTS NEED IT – IT’s A MUST!
    And on a humorous note, the wiki article contains these gems:
    “…While a verdant Arctic Ocean is a viable working model, sceptical scientists point out that it would be possible for Azolla colonies in deltas or freshwater lagoons to be swept into the Arctic Ocean by strong currents, removing the necessity for a freshwater layer….” (I didn’t think it was allowed to mention sceptics on Wikipedia in relation to anything climatic).
    and
    “…Much of the current interest in oil exploration in the Arctic regions is directed towards the Azolla deposits. This means that much money is available for the study of this event…” (Oh those horrible oil companies, throwing money at destroying Gaia).

  78. Despite 1500 journalists being involved in the Durban party, there was almost no coverage with any real content in the MSM. As I have said elsewhere on WUWT, their editors are apparently unaware that their industry is facing extinction. Can I add, who do you have to be sleeping with or have the videotapes on to get a 2 week holiday in Durban where you produce almost nothing?
    From a journalistic perspective, the real tragedy is that Hunter S. Thompson is dead, and apparently nobody had the guts or initiative to go to Durban and do a bit of gonzo journalism. There were enough freaks and weirdos (not to mention hypocrites) there to make Hunter S. salivate at the prospect. Fear and Loathing, or descriptions of the US political process, would pale in comparison.
    How about it, Willis? If funds can be found, would you be interested in using your deep knowledge of human failings to report from the next UN lovefest?

  79. johanna says:
    December 11, 2011 at 8:12 pm

    … How about it, Willis? If funds can be found, would you be interested in using your deep knowledge of human failings to report from the next UN lovefest?

    Like the song says,

    If you’ve got the money, honey,
    I’ve got the time …

    Sounds like fun.
    w.

  80. Anyone else notice the eerie similarity to the way the People’s Front of Judea [Monty Python’s Life of Brian] works. The Python boys virtually wrote the script for Durban 30+ years ago.
    Reg Right, now, eh. Item four: attainment of world supremacy within the next five years. Eh, Francis, you’ve been doing some work on this.
    Francis Yeah, thank you, Reg. Well, quite frankly, siblings, I think five years is optimistic, unless we can smash the Roman Empire within the next twelve months.
    Reg Twelve months?
    Francis Yeah. Twelve months. And let’s face it… as empires go, this is the big one, so we’ve got to get up off our arses, and stop just talking about it.
    PFJ Hear Hear!!!
    Loretta I agree. It’s action that counts, not words, and we need action now.
    PFJ Hear Hear!!!
    Reg You’re right. We could sit around here all day talking, passing resolution, making clever speeches, it’s not going to shift one Roman soldier.
    Francis So let’s just stop gabbing on about it, it’s completely pointless, and it’s getting us nowhere.
    PFJ Right.
    Loretta I agree. This is a complete waste of time.
    ——–[Judith runs in, panicked.]
    Judith They’ve arrested Brian!!
    PFJ What?
    Judith They’ve dragged him off. They’re going to crucify him.
    Reg Right. This calls for immediate discussion.
    Judith What?!?
    Rebel1 Immediate.
    Rebel2 Right.
    Loretta New motion?
    Reg Completely new motion. Eh, That, ah. That there be, ah, immediate action,
    Francis … ah, once the vote has been taken.
    Reg Well, obviously once the vote has been taken, you can’t act on a resolution ’till you’ve voted on it.
    Judith Reg, for God’s sake, let’s go now, please!
    Reg Yeah, yeah. Right, right. In the, in the light of fresh information from ah, sibling Judith.
    Loretta [Who’s taking notes.] Ah, not so fast, Reg.
    Judith Reg, For God’s sake. It’s perfectly simple. All you’ve got to do is to go out of that door now, and try to stop the Romans nailing him up. It’s happening, Reg. Something’s actually happening, Reg. Can’t you understand? Aaawoooooo!!!!!
    [She rushes out in a rage.]
    Francis Ooh. Ooh dear.
    Reg Hello… and a little ego-trip for the feminists.
    Loretta What?
    Reg Ah, oh, sorry, Loretta. Aah. Aah, read that back, would you?

  81. Well, I was dumb enough to read some of the document. What a load of tripe! I like the title of Annex I, “UNFCCC biennial reporting guidelines for developed country Parties” I take that to mean that since I live in a developed country (they never list which are), every two years, I would have to submit a report, in accordance with those guidelines, on all the parties I’ve attended. They really seem to like the word modalities. I guess the third worlders don’t know that those of us who actually speak English reject as nonsense any prose that includes such words.

  82. Joachim Seifert says:
    December 11, 2011 at 2:22 pm
    Hi crosspatch
    interesting would be, according to your opinion, the process of as you put it:
    ” The complete discrediting of the IPCCs AR4, the GISS and CRU climate model projections, and the sea level rise scare. By 2020, I am fairly well certain, we will see such a wide divergence between the observations and those projections as to completely discredit them once and for all.”
    Give a few clues of what we can expect during 2017 – 2019, before 2020, and how these guys will finally leave the stage……

    There are hints that 2011 will be cooler than was authoritatively projected a few weeks ago (i.e., not the 10th warmest on record, but below that), and that 2012 may fall off the plateau of the past decade or so. If it does so decidedly, and if Arctic ice does a noticeable rebound despite its reaching a low volume-level this year, much of the steam will go out of alarmism. A couple more years below the plateau and its goose will be cooked–and the alarmists will have to ramp up oceanic acidification.

    • Roger, AGW says there is a lot of missing/additionally heat “in the pipeline” and the heat
      is “masked” and computer programs cannot rip down the mask to see the missing/or in hiding
      energy……
      For how many more years can this “pipeline-masking-hiding” argument be repeated?
      Would 3 more cold years be a wake up call?

  83. Incidentally, I read here a while back that these “airports” in the Maldives may actually be heli-ports, which would make them less damning than they seem. I.e., they’d be mere, inexpensive postage stamps.

  84. For Canada’s position following Durban, see
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/12/11/durban-climate-canada-reaction.html
    Some highlights from here:
    “Environment Minister Peter Kent said he is cautiously optimistic a new global climate agreement can be reached by 2015, following the conclusion of a UN summit in Durban, South Africa.
    Kent reaffirmed the Canadian government’s opposition to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol — which was set to expire at the end of next year but will be extended under the Durban Platform — and that it would not renew its commitment to the accord.
    Kent also said the government would not contribute to a global fund designed to help developing nations mitigate the effects of climate change.”

  85. Leon Brozyna says:
    December 11, 2011 at 2:46 pm
    That looks like a Somali “seaman” of the sort you’d not want to meet on the high seas.

    Now there’s a problem crying out for the attention of the UN–and one it would deal with (piracy) without politics complicating things.
    Or would it? Has it?

  86. “in this decade when scientists say we need emissions to peak
    Apart from asking “Which scientists? I honestly don’t believe this man. Having lived with the EU and it’s machinations for the last 30+ years, this is the sort of statement frequently made to “buy off” protest until such time as they have mugged you with the real deal. I would advised everyone to go through the whole document with a fine tooth comb. I guarantee they are laying a whole minefield of traps for those who oppose this.

  87. DirkH says:
    December 11, 2011 at 3:24 pm
    davidmhoffer says:
    December 11, 2011 at 2:42 pm
    “It seems to me that some fairly pragmatic politicians have suckered the green movement this time around. ”
    It only seems so. The Green movement is financed by Soros, Rockefeller, the EU commission, and do the bidding of their masters. This time, the masters had no interest in masses of Greenshirts yelling and storming the conference centre. Why not? Well, CAGW seems to have outlived its usefulness.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Throughout all of this, I keep wondering if the “Cold War” is really over. Where DOES all the funding come from? Russia? China? Venezuela? Drug Cartels? Importers and Exporters of restricted goods? The Fundamentalist religion of your choice – pick one of the hundreds available. Anarchists in addition to those Foundations listed above. There are lots of groups who would like to see this CAGW thing carry on for a few more years distracting the majority of people from the end game from which these funders might benefit. Crazy? Maybe. But where is all that money coming from and WHY? They will use CAGW until its usefulness has run its course then move to the next scary thing they can use to make money or further their cause. Altruism is hard to find these days.

  88. “This could take us over the two degree threshold where we pass from danger to potential catastrophe.”
    Aha, a religious person, believing in tipping points.
    There is a threshold at 2 degrees! Gee, I’m impressed.
    And I’m not so sure that jacket is a sign of a sustainable way of life………green or not green.

  89. Kwik, you just beat me to it!
    I was going to say that good ol’ Kumi’s lovely green jacket definitely wasn’t made out of hemp and lentils – it looks to be made from evil Big Oil’s (c) fossil fuel products.
    I’m sure Kumi would burn it as a form of protest, but that would increase the size of his carbon footprint…..

  90. JimF says:
    December 11, 2011 at 6:02 pm
    Let’s see now, they haven’t been to Dubrovnik or Perth (WA) or many other party spots. I think they now have a ten-year planning horizon.
    Not Dubrovnik, please, it’s suffered enough.

  91. “This could take us over the two degree threshold where we pass from danger to potential catastrophe.”
    I have always been of the opinion that a certain percentage of a given human population are inherently mindless, stupid and (morally) vile: would it not be typical of the hippies to blame the ‘evils of religion’ on a subset of themselves who happen to be classically ‘religious’, as opposed to their more modern Church of Gaia, aka Humanist Ideology?
    Just saying: hippies are likely more of a problem than commonly realized for all those who do not take pleasure in human torment and death.

  92. “Is it wise to stall actions which can alleviate the risks, which are now clearly identified?”
    Paraphrasing Lord Monckton: meteor strikes are a clearly identified risk – shall we being construction of the orbital cannons immediately then? Alien invasions are also a possible risk. So is the clear possibility of a large number of humans spontaneously turning into highly intelligent, rapid-breeding, land-piranhas.
    Possibility detached from probability is… being a hippie.

  93. I was looking at photos of the protesters in Durban and noticed two african woman holding up placards with the works “create and retain climate jobs!” and it struck me after hearing of 1000 new paid delegates position made for Durban.
    I don’t know how this juggernaut can be stopped?
    There are more then I can count NGO/NFP organization(also paid) involved with lobbying and political influencing, hundreds if not thousands of positions/jobs being formed around CAGW enforcement every day AND universities churning out minions of indoctrinated and GIS infected students looking for employment in the climate industry. It is now effecting all areas of our lives through increases in taxes, transportation, food, heating, info structure, etc., plus the nonstop media attention ramping up the doom and gloom.
    And all orchestrated by…………. world banks, big money supported enviro NGO’s, subsidy hungry energy companies and government flat earth scientists/activists. And here we are with unelected environmentalist activists think tanks making laws in other countries to make binding agreements to pay them the money to support their religious belief for the good of us all. I’m sure poor people in all parts of the world might see that differently. Like me!
    All this money and effort to stop a non existent problem ……You just cant make this stuff up?!
    And do we have to pay for clean up on any natural disasters that they deem caused by our sins???
    So who can blame some poor africans who haven’t got a lot of prospects cashing in? Mr. Kumi Naidoo should know that he is condemning people to poverty. Cheap accessible(coal) energy is the only way out of poverty, so clean water and dependable power generation will save lives in africa. All this money is robbing from the poor that could have been spent on heath care and hungry bellies instead of being wasted on a carbon tax system built around the IPCC BS(bad science)
    I feel it wont stop there, will they be the ones who sign the papers for us to give up other rights and privileges our ancestors fought hard for and died for? Can all liberties and prosperity be swept away with the stroke of a pen? Poof!
    You wonder what they will agree to control next? Internet, our laws, dietary enforcement, population control, a minority report?
    You can only push the populace so long before they start pushing back, viva la revolution!

  94. What fascinated me were the reports that the delegates finalised their draft at 5 AM local time. It shows how idiotic these UN bureaucrats are: as if anybody has a clear head at 5 AM after staying up all day and all night!
    Maybe this is the UN’s modus operandi. Maybe this is why the world has been lumbered with treaties and protocols that nobody wants: UN flunkeys simply have been trained to outlast normal people who usually sleep at night.

  95. Missing the point I think guys (the word `guys` should be read as including `those of all sexes`),
    They have all signed themselves their own employment contract for the next 8 years at least,
    They have signed themselves their own travel arrangements for the next 8 years ,
    There is not now any need to raise the issue or discuss the science of climate change for the next 8 years,
    The next 8 years of meetings will be simply “to flesh out the wording of the agreement”
    The Developed countries will know they are (on paper) currently (slowly) reducing their CO2 output so its a done deal that by the time 2020 comes around they can show a net output reduction, I can hear their words now… “shame about the atmospheric CO2 going up but we have done our bit, it must be the developing countries what did it”
    I heard again that the BBC this week talking about the CO2 “pollution” . I have a strange feeling they have lost the plot !
    but thank god we have been told they have “now saved the planet for our children” I will sleep well tonight.
    regards

  96. Willis says “I’m still real real curious, though … where is this stinkin’ agreement to be found? What did they agree to?”
    Willis, you will have to support the agreement to find out what is in it. (-;
    You are just not a member of the club.

  97. “This could take us over the two degree threshold where we pass from danger to potential catastrophe.” Hmmmmm, let’s see…
    “This could maybe take over the rather arbitrary two degree threshold (which has yet to measured – if it can) where we might pass from a perceived, yet undefined danger to theoretical and unproven potential unknown catastrophe. Then again, it might not happen.” Yep, fixed now.

  98. Isonomia says:
    December 12, 2011 at 1:04 am
    In short:
    “They have agreed not to agree”
    Almost, but they are not that concise. They do not even agree on what they disagree about. Colour them confused with their only clarity being a determination to have their confusion further funded. If millions wasted on these miseducated idiots producing inane proposals was their only harm, I would almost agree that such meeting were worth it for entertainment purposes. Unfortunately green policy is costing hundreds of billlions in malinvestment of resources and creating international tensions as economies collapse. This is not amusing.

  99. he Bear just hopes this most vauable of blog on this topic, does not allow its editorial standards to drop, driven down by hubris.
    Please keep the dissent rational and reasonable.
    Do not commit the sins of the opposition. Stick to the facts and fair interpretation of them.
    Mr Watts: be on careful watch, from here on (the dissent is `maybe’ now in the ascendant) for bare polemic attempting to hide behind the skirts of fair comment/opinion.
    Best,
    The Bear

  100. Silly me… I thought all those references to Annex I and non Annex I countries, that somewhere in Annex I or Annex II or Annex III or any of the silly Annexs they would have explicitly identified which country went where. Nope, not even a decision tree for determining which annex a country would fit into.
    Draft, of what? This document is so squiggly that Daft is more proper a description. The meaning of each paragraph and phrases are so involuted convoluted and polluted that only a climate kangaroo court (Sorry. no offense intended to our Aussie pals) could possibly believe they have jurisprudence.
    Normally when I would professionally review a document that played this lead off with a positive defining action word, I’d strip out all the paragraphs into their own little action word groups and then analyze the statements by category. This daft draft’s paragraphs may lead off with optional phrasings like “suggests, agrees, invites, recognizes, recalling, urges…” but the contents of those innocuous paragraphs are filled with twisting little phrases; for example, “44. Urges and requests the Global Environment Facility to make available support” er, Global Enviroment Facility? This so-called facility along with a number of others are silkily slipped in all of these chewy sentences, but where is the org chart that defines each groups role, members, budget?
    As a single working document, this document, in American country boy terms is best described as “This dog won’t hunt”. In less polite American country boy terms, “It sure looks like a hawg got your bitchdog pregnant, cause those hairless pups all got a ferocious appetite and curly tails”
    For those that lead rather than led, do you also suffer angst when lighted instead of lit? Y’all must be Walt Kelly and Pogo fans… Me, I go Pogo and Thurber too.

  101. I tried plodding through the document provided by Willis http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/awglca14/eng/l04.pdf and here is my interpretation of what they agreed to:
    1. “Agrees… to continue to work towards identifying a global goal
    for substantially reducing global emissions by 2050, and to consider it at its eighteenth
    session”
    This document essentially says that all parties agree to continue talking about this, share information, and produce technical reports and review those technical reports. In other words, all the paid delegates have provided themselves with ‘green jobs’ for the foreseeable future. There are no ‘reduction targets specified even though the convention agreed to ‘review progress in meeting those targets annually.
    While I was reading this I couldn’t help but think I was reading the part of “Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” that dealt with the ‘management consultants’ and the reports they produced concerning the impending destruction of the planet they occupied.

  102. I started reading the draft(?) but hadn’t managed the first sentence before realizing I would have to pop down to the local area quasi legal substance distributing stake holder in the hope of procuring his agreement to forward sell me something to keep me from becoming sleep advantaged until funding was in place.
    Its contagious.

  103. Here is “the agreement” you are looking for.
    http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/awglca14/eng/crp38.pdf
    17. Reduce global greenhouse gas emissions more than 100 per cent by 2040 by Annex
    I Parties; sustained by short-term mitigation by Annex I Parties of more than 50 per cent by
    2017; ensuring stabilization of the global temperature at a maximum of a 1 degree Celsius
    increase;
    Please take note, the UN is calling for industrialized countries to GHG by MORE THAN 100 PERCENT. Within 5 years the industrialized countries must cut GHG by 50 percent.
    [REPLY: Many thanks, Fred, much appreciated. I’ve put a link in the head post. -w.]

  104. David says:
    December 12, 2011 at 4:06 am

    Willis says “I’m still real real curious, though … where is this stinkin’ agreement to be found? What did they agree to?”
    Willis, you will have to support the agreement to find out what is in it. (-;
    You are just not a member of the club.

    Yep, channeling the “famous” Nancy Pelosi, we’ll have to pass it before we find out what’s in it. And by the time it passes, that content will look decidedly different from the current content. So until it passes, this will continue to be one big drunken chirade.

  105. Kumi Naidoo is a smart guy, but his only expertise is activism. His opinion on GW isn’t worth 10 cents!

  106. I can fully understand the position of the non-Annex I (non-Western, non-developed, non-rich) countries. After all, the weekly take-home pay of an average American worker is more than families in most of these third-world countries will see in an entire year.
    Thus one average American worker can readily save 51 climate change-ravaged third-world families from the great hardship of working for an entire year, and be no worse off than they are. Yup, makes sense.

  107. TedK:

    “44. Urges and requests the Global Environment Facility to make available support” er, Global Enviroment Facility? This so-called facility along with a number of others are silkily slipped in all of these chewy sentences, but where is the org chart that defines each groups role, members, budget?

    The Global Enviroment Facility is ‘Celebrating Twenty Years’ according to its web site, http://www.thegef.org. During the Copenhagen conference two years ago the Guardian described it as “a partnership of 10 agencies including the World Bank and the UN Environment Programme”, quoting an Oxfam adviser as saying “It proposes a green fund to be run by a board but the big risk is that it will run by the World Bank and the Global Environment Facility and not the UN. That would be a step backwards, and it tries to put constraints on developing countries when none were negotiated in earlier UN climate talks.” Later during the same shambles the BBC picked up the same theme:

    Developing countries are stressing that they need to have direct access to the fund as, they argue, their experience to date of trying to access funds from existing agencies has not been a pleasant one.
    The Global Environment Facility in Washington comes in for particular criticism. It handles the Least Developed Countries Fund for Climate Adaptation and the Special Climate Change Fund.

    Such convoluted history shows how hard it is to understand an UNFCCC ‘Daft’ as an outsider. Here are two other mentions of the GEF, the first from Andrew Orlowski in March 2010 on the choice of Ron (Lord) Oxburgh to lead one of the Climategate inquiries, given his lead role in London for an outfit many of us had never before heard of called GLOBE:

    The claim that Globe UK is a small parliamentary body may raise eyebrows. Globe is a worldwide network with funding it acknowledges from: “the United Nations, The Global Environment Facility, The World Bank, European Commission, the Governments of Canada and Great Britain, the Senate of Brazil and Globe Japan.” Globe UK is a local branch.

    Sounds as if Canada won’t be dipping in its pockets for such shadowy outfits in the future, at least, based on the straight talking of Peter Kent. And who has made money from working for GEF. The following paragraph is now longer visible on the web site for the Chicago Climate Exchange but in December 2009 described its then Vice President, Paula DiPerna:

    Paula DiPerna is Executive Vice President of the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) and President, CCX International. Ms. DiPerna served formerly as President of the Joyce Foundation in Chicago, a major public policy philanthropy based in Chicago, Illinois, known for its innovative grantmaking; and Vice-President for International Affairs of the Cousteau Society, whose President was pioneer and ocean explorer, Jacques-Yves Cousteau. As Vice-President for International Affairs, Ms. DiPerna was responsible for all aspects of national and international environmental policy, and interacted extensively with the U.S. Congress, Heads of State, and the United Nations. While at the Cousteau, from 1979 to 1997, Ms. DiPerna was also a writer and co-producer of many documentary films and has traveled extensively globally, including one year in the Amazon regions of Brazil, Colombia and Peru. Ms. DiPerna also has served as a consultant on environmental matters to the World Bank, the Global Environment Facility and LEAD-International, among other organizations.

    That text was once at http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/content.jsf?id=139.
    So you hadn’t heard of it. To be honest I couldn’t place it myself but those are the notes I found in my personal wiki.
    There’s a great deal of clean up of this level of international organization that has to happen. But I think it’s crystal clear that member governments that have been willing to fund such things in the past are far from keen now. Just to remind them why, here’s the key paragraph from Willis once again:

    The idea that an energy tax, a hugely regressive tax which hits the poor the hardest, should be imposed in order to line the pockets of wealthy third world despots and scam artists is so bizarre that one wonders about the sanity of the folks espousing it.

    Thanks for saying that Mr Eschenbach. Bye bye Global Environment Facility. (I know it might take a decade or two but the funding must run dry. So bye bye.)

  108. Here’s another goal for them: stop season-change now. After all, would we not be better off if the citizens of the world did not have to endure freezing winters? Let’s get the climate bureaucrats onto this one double-quick!

  109. An agreement that includes the provision for the reduction by 2040 (or any other date that you can think of) of manmade carbon emissions by more than 100%, is not an agreement, it is simply a farce. 20% would be either optimistic or absurd depending on one’s point of view. More than 100% merely indicates that there was not one single delegate present who should be safely let out on his own. Seemingly there was no one there to stand up and point out that this single provision destroyed both the conference and any agreement that it came up with.

  110. The Greens would like to get this going now “because time is running out”. What they really mean is, in case global temperatures cool naturally before the carbon tax dollars get into the system.
    This is all good stuff for the Australian elections in March 2013, that should see the socialistic Greens booted out along with the Labour government that’s turned a $350B surplus into a $290B deficit within 12 months of office.

  111. Willis Eschenbach says: December 11, 2011 at 12:55 pm
    “Kinda depressing that Al Jazeera has the in-depth article.”
    Why depressing?? the best mainstream news organisation I’ve seen recently…

  112. Willis, @
    UPDATE II: How foolish of me not to realize that in the UN system, something only 55 pages long can only be a draft agreement. The actual agreement is 138 pages long, and is here (h/t Fred Berple). It requires developed countries to …
    I’m not sure that can be “the agreement” as it’s evidently an unfinished draft. For example, page 8 begins …
    [move paragraphs 34- 38, after the preambular paragraphs]
    [Add a heading on global goals and move under this heading, after paragraph 33,
    paragraphs 39-51]
    Global goal for substantially reducing global greenhouse gas emissions by 2050
    8. [The text could be structured in three groups: elements relevant for the global goal,
    2ºC and the numbers; the goal for developed countries and contribution by developing
    countries; and context elements]
    [Group 1: global goal]
    9. In the context of the ultimate objective of the Convention under its Article 2 and of
    the Bali Action Plan (decision 1/CP.13), Parties share the vision for the achievement of a
    global goal to reduce global anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases based on equity,
    common but differentiated responsibilities and respective

    Surely they aren’t stupid enough to sign up to an binding agreement which isn’t finished. I mean, they wouldn’t, would they?

  113. Sunspot says
    This is all good stuff for the Australian elections in March 2013, that should see the socialistic Greens booted out along with the Labour government that’s turned a $350B surplus into a $290B deficit within 12 months of office.
    —————-
    You are somehow forgetting to explain a few things
    1. The global financial crisis. If that money had not been returned to taxpayers quickly, so they could spend it, Australia would have 10% unemployment like the USA. Australia has 5% unemployment.
    2. The next budget has Australia back to budget neutrality, with a thin surplus. And many economists, like people who actually know what they are talking about, say this is a bit too quick and will knock a couple of points off GDP.
    —————-
    And the conservatives, if they had been in power, would not have done anything different. it’s all conventional economics 101.
    Australian politicians of all stripes are pretty pragmatic. We try to keep the loons out of power.

  114. Joachim Seifert says:
    December 11, 2011 at 2:22 pm
    Hi crosspatch
    interesting would be, according to your opinion, the process of as you put it:
    ” The complete discrediting of the IPCCs AR4, the GISS and CRU climate model projections, and the sea level rise scare. By 2020, I am fairly well certain, we will see such a wide divergence between the observations and those projections as to completely discredit them once and for all.”
    Give a few clues of what we can expect during 2017 – 2019, before 2020, and how these guys will finally leave the stage……
    ——————————————————————-
    I can’t answer for crosspatch (whose comment above I thought was excellent), but I’ll say this.
    If you want a clue what “2017 – 2019” will be like, just imagine your worst ever nightmare, multiply it by ten, add in halucinogenic drugs and excruciating torture and you might be getting somewhere close to the kind of evil which is at the heart of these “plans”.
    Getting through the next five years without these crazed b*stards at the UN wrecking humanity will be a blessing. They need to be stopped and time is running short before they assert total control, at which point nobody will dare question anything they say.
    Look at what’s already happened in the world this year. Many precedents have been set in the areas of finance, military action, governmental and beurocratical power grabs. Lots of mean, nasty, horrible things have been going on. It’s only going to get worse buddy.
    So, “these guys” don’t “finally leave the stage” unless public opinion, or something, removes them from it. They’re on a mission, so we need to be on our guard.
    My guess is they’re soon going to give us something which will relegate the climate change “problem” to a distant part of our memories. They’re so generous that way. If a gift stops giving, come up with a new one.

  115. New “Final” document here. The previous document (CRP.39) has now been renamed. It is now described as:

    Supplementary document containing texts reflecting work undertaken at the fourth part of the fourteenth session of the AWG-LCA, in order to carry forward ideas and proposals in areas in which continued discussions are envisaged next year.

    It still has the “more than 100%”, so all is not lost.
    w.

  116. THE WORLD FROM BERLIN
    The Durban Climate Agreement ‘Is Almost Useless’
    The climate talks in Durban ended with an agreement to agree on a new agreement on emissions cuts in coming years.

  117. LazyTeenager says:
    December 12, 2011 at 1:52 pm
    Unfortunately we do have the Green “loons” holding the balance of power.
    The current labour/greens government dished out billions to people that did not need it, supposably, in an effort to reduce the impact of the GFC. The people that benefitted the most were department stores owners selling large LCD TV’s. Soon after that the reserve bank had to increase interest rates to head off inflation. All that money is pretty much down the drain and should have been kept until we really needed it. A capital works infrastructure program would have been the answer but would be beyond a labour government. The previous Coalition government provided income tax cuts on many consecutive years and still manage to create a $350B surplus. Historically, Australian Labour governments have never been good money managers.
    The current government now has to apply new taxes such as the carbon tax and additional mining tax to get back into surplus. None of this money will go towards the so called “Climate Control”

  118. “Dave L. says:
    December 11, 2011 at 1:12 pm
    Kumi Naidoo was once a communist activist for the ANC in South Africa. He is a watermelon.”
    Activists – pffftt. They tend to morph to where the money is flowing, just like jellyfish floating around the oceans in search of nutrients. Jellyfish have more spine though 😉

  119. Eschenbach says:
    December 12, 2011 at 2:48 pm
    New “Final” document here. The previous document (CRP.39) has now been renamed. It is now described as:
    Supplementary document containing texts reflecting work undertaken at the fourth part of the fourteenth session of the AWG-LCA, in order to carry forward ideas and proposals in areas in which continued discussions are envisaged next year.
    It still has the “more than 100%”, so all is not lost.
    w.
    ==============
    Willis – I can’t print these out to look at them, but this appears to be just a supplement to the actual agreement which would still be in the series 38/39, and covering stuff needing to be done for it. 39 is still the latest version which is what Monckton wrote on, but I can’t easily see what the changes are in 39 to the 38 ‘standard’ version.

  120. polistra says: December 11, 2011 at 1:23 pm
    “It’s not all that unusual for Al Jazeera to have the most unbiased take on news nowadays. The official US line about AJ has always been false. The Arab world has its own biases, but it’s generally free from our particular censorships and orthodoxies.”
    polistra, this is very well put, and worth noting (and repeating!). If you have not copyrighted it, I might steal it to explain to people why I prefer to watch Al Jazeera these days.

  121. Al Jazeera (eng.) merely simulates sanity. If you want to know what they REALLY have to say, get a simultaneous translator to sit with you through some of their Arabic programs/news on the same subjects. ‘Day and night’ doesn’t begin to describe the contrast.
    It’s taqiyya on stilts.

Comments are closed.