Doha post mortem – some green activists 'close to despair'

Newsbytes from Dr. Benny Peiser of The GWPF


A couple of weeks ago the great global warming bandwagon coughed and spluttered to a halt in Doha, the latest stop on its never-ending world tour. The annual UN climate conference COP18 is no small affair. This is a bandwagon whose riders number in the thousands: motorcades of politicians, buses full of technocrats and policy wonks and jumbo-jets full of hippies travelling half way round the world, (ostensibly) to save the planet from the (allegedly) pressing problem of climate change  — Andrew Montford, The Spectator 9 December 2012

At the end of another lavishly-funded U.N. conference that yielded no progress on curbing greenhouse emissions, many of those most concerned about climate change are close to despair. –Barbara Lewis and Alister Doyle, Reuters, 9 December 2012

The United Nations climate talks in Doha went a full extra 24 hours and ended without increased cuts in fossil fuel emissions and without financial commitments between 2013 and 2015. However, this is a “historic” agreement, insisted Qatar’s Abdullah bin Hamad Al-Attiyah, the COP18 president. —Inter Press Service, 10 December 2012

The conference held in Qatar agreed to extend the emissions-limiting Kyoto Protocol, which would have run out within weeks. But Canada, Russia and Japan – where the protocol was signed 15 years ago – all abandoned the agreement. The United States never ratified it in the first place, and it excludes developing countries where emissions are growing most quickly. Delegates flew home from Doha without securing a single new pledge to cut pollution from a major emitter. –Barbara Lewis and Alister Doyle, Reuters, 9 December 2012

Santa Claus and Kyoto protocol

Climate negotiators at the most recent conference on global warming were unable to reduce expectations fast enough to match the collapse of their agenda. The only real winners here were the bureaucrats in the diplomacy industry for whom endless rounds of carbon spewing conferences with no agreement year after year mean jobs, jobs, jobs. The inexorable decline of the climate movement from its Pickett’s Charge at the Copenhagen summit continues. The global green lobby is more flummoxed than ever. These people and these methods couldn’t make a ham sandwich, much less save Planet Earth. –Walter Russell Mead, The American Interest, 9 December 2012

Britain faces even tougher green taxes if a climate change deal is signed in Doha that could force it to reduce emissions by another third. The country is signed up to a target to cut carbon emissions by 34 per cent by 2020, but this could go up to 42 per cent under a new United Nations deal. Experts last night warned that the new target could add hundreds of pounds to energy bills every year, and industry leaders said new carbon taxes would make British businesses less competitive. Benny Peiser, of Lord Lawson’s think tank the Global Warming Policy Foundation, said the cost to industry would be passed on to consumers. “The more renewables you build, like wind, the more you need subsidies so it pushes energy bills up. If business has to pay higher bills the costs of products goes up.” –Louise Gray and Rowena Mason, The Daily Telegraph, 8 December 2012

The UN climate conferences have descended into ritual farce, as naked money-grabbing on behalf of poor countries contrasts with finagling impossible solutions to what is likely a much-exaggerated problem. One leading question is how dubious science, shoddy economics and tried-and-failed socialist policies have come to dominate the democratic process in so many countries for so long. The answer appears to be the skill with which a radical minority — centred in and promoted by the UN, and funded by national governments and, even more bizarrely, corporations — has skilfully manipulated the political process at every level. –Peter Foster, Financial Post, 7 December 2012

It’s green, it’s cheap and it’s plentiful! So why are opponents of shale gas making such a fuss? If it were not so serious there would be something ludicrous about the reaction of the green lobby to the discovery of big shale gas reserves in this country. Here we are in the fifth year of a downturn. We have pensioners battling fuel poverty. We have energy firms jacking up their prices. We have real worries about security of energy supply – a new building like the Shard needs four times as much juice as the entire town of Colchester. In their mad denunciations of fracking, the Greens and the eco-warriors betray the mindset of people who cannot bear a piece of unadulterated good news. –Boris Johnson, The Daily Telegraph, 10 December 2012


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Ah, BoJo, how we love you.


These Greens are becoming Luddites with iPads.

Frank K.

From the Reuter’s article (comments for which are now “closed” after 24 hours – heh).
Delegates flew home from Doha without securing a single new pledge to cut pollution from a major emitter. ”
Green Hypocrites.

They may be “close to despair,” but they still have access to essentially limitless taxpayer funding, and they will never run out of liberty-robbing, totalitarian ideas for using it.

Silver Ralph

I love the article by Boris Johnson (the London Mayor), the last in the series given in the introduction to this thread.
Britain is being forested with white satanic mills, and yet the total contribution of wind power is still only about 0.4 per cent of Britain’s needs. Wave power, solar power, biomass – their collective oomph wouldn’t pull the skin off a rice pudding.
Brilliant. Boris for prime minister, instead of that vacuous husky-hugging, wind-turbine toting idiot we have now.
Oh, and while you are at it, Boris, please can we have that nice shiney new London airport in the Thames. I am sick and tired of going around in circles above Colchester, and burning a tonne extra fuel per flight (10% extra). And that proposal for a 5.5 degree glideslope to reduce noise over London is pure madness – most dangerous thing I have heard in years. Flying is difficult enough, without placing ‘normal procedures’ on the limits of what the aircraft can do.
So come on, Boris, kick Cleggers and CaMoron in the balls and sort out this nation for us.

Fred from Canuckistan

Of course they are sad . . . their gravy train is getting derailed, their ability to foist their eco religious beliefs on everyone is failing and they are starting to twig to the fact they have been conned by the Greenie leaders into honoring and praying to a false god.
Reality is such a be-atch.

Here’s a comment I made about a week ago on another thread:
Electric power-generation emissions could be reduced substantially only if switching to nuclear power were allowed to count as fulfilling obligations under the treaties–which it is not.
Why not? Because it’s not “sustainable” or “renewable”–i.e., it needs refueling. But those are minor downsides compared to the supposed CO2 catastrophe on the horizon. Correction–they are major downsides to environmental zealots who want to impose their vision of a sustainable utopia on the world. Those zealots constitute the majority of attendees at these conferences, because the attendees are mostly appointed by nations’ environmental agencies, who aren’t going to choose anyone but a greenie.
As Stewart Brand and James Lovelock (and Wired magazine) have recognized, nuclear is the only practical option. The supposed hidden high costs of nuclear are partly the result of using non-standardized plant designs; partly the result of using current technology, which has the potential for a dangerous meltdown; and partly the result of excessive costs imposed in the US by regulations.
There are lower-cost unconventional nuclear options that can vastly reduce the nuclear waste problem. One such unconventional nuclear option is described in the book Prescription for the Planet. And there are places that waste could be safely and inexpensively disposed of–e.g., in stainless steel cylinders dumped into the deep mud in the Pacific NW of Hawaii. (Oops–Clinton signed a treaty forbidding doing that, presumably at the instigation of greenie zealots. Can’t be too precautionary, after all.)
It doesn’t matter if greenies dispute those claims because, if some governments believe them, they will build nukes and thereby reduce their emissions, even at a higher cost than they had anticipated.
Renewables, once they become a large share of the supply, destabilize the power system. They are intermittent so they need spinning backup, which nearly doubles their cost. And they have other hidden costs that are now coming to light in countries that have gone for them in a big way, such as shorter life-spans than promised, higher maintenance costs than promised (including added wear and tear on the existing generating machinery), wide-scale intermittency, which was promised not to happen, high transmission costs, etc. Here’s a quote about the bottom line on those costs, from a recent German article:
“Almost all predictions about the expansion and cost of German wind turbines and solar panels have turned out to be wrong – at least by a factor of two, sometimes by a factor of five.”
–Daniel Wentzel, Die Welt, 20 October 2012, at
It is the failure of renewables to remotely live up to the much-hyped promises that greenies made for them that has caused EU governments to cool on them, a failure this article deliberately avoids mentioning. According to the article, it’s just short-sightedness, penny-pinching, dog-in-the-manger veto-ing, and lack of world-wide coordination that’s causing the problem and, by implication, all that’s needed is (the imposition of?) more Will.
That’s not going to happen–the trend is going the other way—and it’s denialism to think it might turn around–countries are not going to commit economic hara-kiri, especially if others are not; and “leading the way” will not induce others to follow, as the EU’s failed pioneering has demonstrated. Quite the reverse. So it’s silly policy to bet the house on that outcome. Realistic precaution (prudence) would be to hedge one’s bet by encouraging, for now at least, the use non-renewable but less-emitting power sources like nuclear and natural gas.
By continuing to insist that “it’s my way or the highway,” greenies risk being left in the lurch.

Steve from Rockwood

snif, snif – it just breaks your heart.


Which leaves one simple question…
What happens when a political machinery is left in place long after it’s relevance has dried up?
Answer: usually disaster.

Regrettably the role of the EU in this isn’t mentioned. But, as they say, they’ll go for carbon reduction alone. I wonder what are they smoking.


I guess that they are close to despair because the world’s weather won’t do what the computers say it should, and ordinary people are beginning to notice.

I love the, “couldn’t make a ham sandwich” quote.
But they will sure find a way to make that sandwich cost more.

richard verney

It is good news that no deal was signed.
We will not end sqnadering by public officials until there is real accountability in public office. Unlike private practice, there appears to be no consequence to massive failures. In the UK, politicians recently wasted several hundred million on a new computer systen for the NHS, which will never see the light of day. For sure, that example is a drop in the ocean compared to the billions that are being wasted on climate change.
How is the UK going to cut CO2 emissions by over 30% by 2020, let alone by over 40%. What is involved in making such drastic reductions. What will be the effect to the consumer and to business (the consumer always paying the cost in the end). No politician ever explains how these cuts will be achieved, let alone the consequences and what life will look like if the cuts were to be made. No grown up thought has gone into this. There has been gross negligence by all the politicians backing this matter.
Everyone entering politics should be obliged to post a bond of not less than say $10million which would be available to recompense the tax payer should it later transpire that policies promoted and/or endorsed by that politician were negligently pursued causing a loss to the tax payer. This would help focus the mind of politicians on the real benfits of the policies that they promote.



Robert M

Bad news for those guys is good news for the rest of the world!

cui bono

Maybe we should club together and buy them all a Mayan calendar for Christmas. It’ll be about as useful next year as they’ll be.


Why do greens hate shale gas? Because they’re leftists who hate “Big Oil” and anything even vaguely linked to it. Because they’re superstitious luddites who fear new technology. Most of all, because they believe that people should be forced to consume as little as possible to minimise the human impact on nature. Their goal is to create artificial shortages of energy as a pretext for rationing.

Bruce Cobb

Their despair stems from the inexorable collapse of their cherished Belief system, and the demise of all of its inherent perks. No more buzzing around the planet to exotic locales at others’ expense, and feeling important and heroic for their “sacrifice” in trying to “save the planet”. No more government funding of pseudoscience nor of “green” boondoggles. No more telling others what kind of energy to use, car to buy, or any number of things that are supposedly “good for the planet”. Woe is them.


Seemingly not easily found by googling: List of the 194 countries attending and a list of the subset of 37 countries who signed on to the Kyoto extension… ??

Peter Miller

Close to despair?


Good news! It looks like the IPCC is going to back away from global warming hysteria. Slashdot has a story,
that links to an ABC News story,
No wonder the greenies are dismayed. The raison d’etre for all these climate conferences is OFFICIALLY going away.


And to think, but a few years ago when Kyoto was formulated, on the cusp of moving towards large scale decarbonizating sectors of the economy, nuclear energy, as the clean source of base load electricity generation, was stopped in its tracks by the hue and cry from the very same Greens advocating going green. So the Kyoto Protocol, based upon the successful Montreal Protocol dealing with CFCs, had the substitute for fossil fuels taken off the table as a viable energy source. Unlike Montreal, which had DuPont’s HFC ready to substitute for CFC, Kyoto substituted an intermittent power (solar and wind) source, which is dependent upon subsidies to survive, creates fuel poverty for the developed countries’ most vulnerable (very young and elderly), and is completely out of reach for undeveloped countries. One can not imagine a worst scenario from supposedly brilliant people. Just goes to show you that some very smart people can be awfully dumb.

David Ross

However, Roger Harrabin at the ‘objective impartial Do ha ha BBC’* put a different spin on things

‘Hot-air’ release at Doha climate talks dispels tension
Roger Harrabin By Roger Harrabin Environment analyst, Doha, Qatar
7 December 2012
Details have emerged of a deal to solve the “hot air” row undermining the EU in the UN climate change talks in Doha.
UN climate talks extend Kyoto Protocol, promise compensation
By Roger Harrabin BBC Environment analyst, Doha
8 December 2012
UN climate talks in Doha have closed with a historic shift in principle but few genuine cuts in greenhouse gases.
The summit established for the first time that rich nations should move towards compensating poor nations for losses due to climate change.
Developing nations hailed it as a breakthrough, but condemned the gulf between the science of climate change and political attempts to tackle it.
The deal, agreed by nearly 200 nations, extends to 2020 the Kyoto Protocol.

The climate bureaucrats sound increasingly like ‘Comical Ali’, Saddam Hussein’s uber-optimistic Minister of Disinformation. Or as Robin Williams once put it…

* –


China’s chief climate negotiator at Doha, Su Wei, “urged developed countries to provide concrete information on fast-start finance as to ensure transparency and guarantee the money is allocated to the support of developing countries.
“Developed countries should also by 2020 fulfill the goal of providing a hundred billion dollars per year – as they’ve already committed to doing.”
China supplies all those solar panels which it wants western taxpayers to pay for with money borrowed from….China:
“China’s photo-voltaic (PV) industry, better known as the “solar industry”, is in the middle of a serious crisis.
“Nearly all the “big names” of the industry, including companies such as LDK Solar, Yingli Solar (which sports fans will recognize from its sponsorship at recent international soccer events) and Suntech Power Holdings are all facing the possibility of bankruptcy, consolidation, or both following a remarkable few years in China’s solar industry.

When it rains it pours: ENSO meter now neutral. Going down!


Here’s a song for all those despairing folks in Doha:

Jenn Oates

“They may be “close to despair,” but they still have access to essentially limitless taxpayer funding, and they will never run out of liberty-robbing, totalitarian ideas for using it.”
My sentiments exactly. I cannot manage to rustle up even a smidgen of optimism that sanity will in some way find its way to the top at last.


Another round of applause for Lord Monckton’s participation, seen reported here at IBD:
He merely summarized in three sentences what everybody else knew but dare not say.


Despair often leads to suicide. One can only hope that the “movement” selects that option instead of taking their wrath out on everyone else.


Good to see that politicians in the paying nations are waking up or better still feel now confident enough to turn their back on this issue. With the cacophony going on from the early 80’s and the chance that there might be something in it they could not be seen to take the chance. Too many votes at stake.
The climate damage compensation package agreed to at Doha will never need to used, the nations claiming on this fund will need to prove that the damage was caused by climate change and not nature doing it’s normal thing. What parameters are being set to claim this. So that is a dud.
If any nation was to claim the payers will claim that since it has not warmed for 20 years or more (by then) it can not have anything to do with climate change.
If we generalize that it was primarily the right wing thinking part of the public who stuck to the mantra that it is all natural, and the left thinking side following the AGW bandwagon it is time to think about Sun Tzu’s statement in his historic book “The art of war”.
“In war it is not important who is right but who is left”
The irony being here that the right is right and are left.

Erik Christensen

SPIEGEL International – Interview with German government advisor Kai Konrad:
“Europe Shouldn’t Try So Hard to Save the Planet”
Konrad: A colleague of mine has correctly said: We are spending a great deal of money to protect the children and grandchildren of the same people we’re allowing to starve today. The amount we’re spending in an attempt to reduce CO2 would be better invested in education and health in the regions that are under threat. Our goal should be to improve economic conditions in developing countries, because that in turn strengthens those countries’ ability to adapt to climate change.
I guess Bjørn Lomborg could give them some advice again – if Mark Lynas will stop trowing pie’s in his face that is…
Mark Lynas:” I once even threw a pie in the face of a Danish scientist who dared to question the orthodox environmental line”–I-one.html#ixzz1R7Tu9FjG


In reply to Roger Knights’
Roger Knights says:
December 10, 2012 at 9:12 am
“Obama must take the lead,” etc.:
The climate treaty is lose, lose. The treaty is not going to “fix” the climate which is not broken.
The climate treaty is going to lead to piles of green energy scams, green accounting scams, a massive US bureaucracty, all of which is going to be controlled by the UN. Billions of dollars will be transfered to third world countries were it will find its way to corrupt third world officials.
Observations and analysis in peer reviewed journals does not support the extreme warming paradigm. Planetary cloud cover increase or decreases in the tropics to resists forcing changes, negative feedback, The scaring IPCC forecasts assumed the planet amplifies forcing changes which is not correct. If the planet’s feedback response is negative, a warming due to a doubling of atmopheric CO2 is less roughly 1C, with most of the warming occuring at high latitudes which will cause the biosphere to expand. So called safe warming is 2C. Mission accomplished. There is no climate crisis to fix.
The problem that needs fixing is the massive waste of funds on green scams which will not significantly reduce the rise of atmosphere CO2, such as the conversion of food to biofuel.

Vigilance should not be reduced on anything related to countering of systemically biased climate science. Systemic bias in climate science that is achieved by:

a) the existence of an unbalanced / myopic focus in the government’s monopolistic-like funding of climate research
b) alarmist gate keepers involved in the peer review process in susceptible journals
c) politically / ideologically manipulated IPCC climate science assessments
d) Roger Harrabin types advocating media censorship of open science dialog

Also, I suggest we forget the analogies with military conflict (war) when discussing climate science and all the related economic / social / political topics that use climate science research results.
This is not a war in any sense; it is inherently a much more fundamentally important activity than mere war. It is the >>2,000 year old ‘eternal’ philosophical dialog where it is decided whether reason and science or ‘something else’ will decide whether we have individual focused voluntary societies or collective focused coercive societies. This dialog is required continuously because of man’s nature, we must be always vigilant.

Mac the Knife

techgm says:
December 10, 2012 at 8:58 am
They may be “close to despair,” but they still have access to essentially limitless taxpayer funding, and they will never run out of liberty-robbing, totalitarian ideas for using it.
Fact! This stupidity and flagrant waste will not stop until the money is cut off.

If it will make the warmist feel better let them flog one another for a time.
Once the welts from that heal, they will understand selfhealing better and when will tell them to quit the lies and heal themselves they will have at least one experiance to learn from.

Mac the Knife

mfo says:
December 10, 2012 at 10:09 am
China’s chief climate negotiator at Doha, Su Wei , “urged developed countries to provide concrete information on fast-start finance as to ensure transparency and guarantee the money is allocated to the support of developing countries”.
“Sooo Whee” and “Sooo Whey” are the traditional swineherds call, to bring hogs to the slop trough. Ironic, isn’t it??


Silver Ralph says:
December 10, 2012 at 9:12 am
I love the article by Boris Johnson (the London Mayor), the last in the series given in the introduction to this thread.
I agree, Boris Johnson’s whole article is superb and deserves a read by everyone:


I’ve noticed that recent climate conferences have closed with an awful lot of despair in the MSM. I don’t know if I buy these despair claims. Seems to me they are making progress towards their goals after each meeting and the media or the NGO’s talking to the media are playing to us by BS’ing us with the despair line.
I also saw that there was some kind of an agreement to create an international organization that would allow developing countries to sue developed countries for extreme weather events. This shows me it’s always been about finding a way to get access to our wealth. Imagine a world where the US is a country among others in a UN system. All the poor countries would be voting themselves our wealth, just like what’s going on today in the US in politics with welfare, obamacare, etc..
I wonder if foreign lobbyists have our democrats in their back pockets because democrats seem to want to spread our wealth around to the world…

Or this:
They are close to the CO2 cliff.
Just a little nudge of Facts should do.

Gail Combs

richard verney says:
December 10, 2012 at 9:36 am
…How is the UK going to cut CO2 emissions by over 30% by 2020, let alone by over 40%….
By kicking out everyone who is not a fifth generation Brit? /sarc

Oh, but they have a new song that they’ve got the kids singing.
On the last hour of the last day in Doha: a singout
(Why am I reminded of “And tomorrow belongs to …”?)

Kevin Kilty

…partly the result of using current technology, which has the potential for a dangerous meltdown;…

Fukashima, TMI, Chernobyl, et al. are not current technology, but rather first generation. Current is third generation. Even so, TMI represents just about the worst that could happen to a U.S. first generation plant and…no deaths…Fukashima was a completely unnecessary bulloxed-up mess and…no deaths. Chernobyl was Russian and an idiotic design. Period.


Darn! , and they were so close to free money for new beachside resorts and condos.

I love what Boris Johnson said
“The extraction process alone would generate tens of thousands of jobs in parts of the country that desperately need them. And above all, the burning of gas to generate electricity is much, much cleaner – and produces less CO2 – than burning coal. What, as they say, is not to like?
“In their mad denunciations of fracking, the Greens and the eco-warriors betray the mindset of people who cannot bear a piece of unadulterated good news. Beware this new technology, they wail. Do not tamper with the corsets of Gaia! Don’t probe her loamy undergarments with so much as a finger — or else the goddess of the earth will erupt with seismic revenge. Dig out this shale gas, they warn, and our water will be poisoned and our children will be stunted and our cattle will be victims of terrible intestinal explosions.”
If the Greens were seriously interested in lowering emissions of CO2 or “saving the Earth” they’d be all over this, whooping in delight. They are not. They show their true colours (watermelon colours – green on the outside, red on the inside) by not celebrating such an abundant, cheap and above all, CLEAN source of energy (less CO2 – their primary concern). Their interests are not what they claim they are. They never were, but here is the proof of it. They don’t want anything that works. They don’t want people to have energy. They don’t want people to have control. They want to TAKE AWAY energy and control. They don’t want civilization to go on. They are angry and frustrated that Mother Earth is not cooperating. We’re not getting warmer. Worse, now there’s enough oil and gas found to keep us going for centuries… Dang, Nature can be a [self-deleted].
You know, I remember when the argument that we should stop using fossil fuels was based on us running out by the year 2000. This was before all that warming became the convenient reason why. So grinding down civilization is what they want. It always was – warming/changing/weirding weather had/has nothing whatsoever to do with it.
Now, these poor buggers can’t even go back to THAT claim when the world is chilling (pun intended) on CAGW. The extremists must have a few arteries popping about now, they are so intense! No wonder, they are running out of delusions to offer us.
Oh, shouldn’t various governments stop wasting money on these stupid COPs? How many non-events do they need before they accept that no means no? Exactly what part of “No” don’t they understand?

richard verney

Difficult times lie ahead for the movement especially as there is no quick fix for the present financial crisis which looks like continuing for another decade.
As Lord Monckton pointed out there has already been 15 years without statistically significant increase in temperature, but the pressure will rise a notch as soon as this becomes 17 years because AGW proponents have already described 17 years as a significant period for establishing whether their models are off target. This will also coincide with CO2 reaching the 400ppm level which is also pschologically a significant milestone.
Those preparing the latest IPCC report no doubt have this in the back of their minds. It may either temper their projections (knowing that wild projections will soon come unstuck unless they are reigned in) or they will see the next IPCC report as the last chance to bring about the change they seek (because in a few years time the wheels will truly be off the wagon and it will become ever more difficult to make out their argument, in the light of an on going stasis in temperature notwithstanding that by then almost 40% of all manmade CO2 emissions will have occurred).
The long game favours those that are not alarmist in nature. Lets hope that our woolly liberal politicians have not committed us to economic suicide before then.

john robertson

John Whitman I agree not military analogies, analogizes of criminal behaviour and blithering incompetence within our civil services work better.
What might blow the lid off this mess, is just one government launching an inquiry into its own culpability in wasting public resources, on false alarmism.
I have suggested our Canadian Conservatives use this as an opportunity to kill the beast and ram a stake through their political opponents.
I have been making enquiries of Environment Canada since 2009, with little to show for it.
Once the worm turns the political wings of the antihuman hysterics will be hammered.
Its turning as our wealth vanishes, so won’t be long now.
A really creative conservative group could demonstrate the treacherous duplicity of our liberal leaders. Agitating to destroy our common wealth and value systems, using and abusing legislative powers, lying, failing to do sworn duties, destabilizing civil society…..
Problem for the politicians who have been trying to force feed the CAGW dreck, are you stupid? Or evil?

William says:
December 10, 2012 at 11:15 am
In reply to Roger Knights’

Roger Knights says:
December 10, 2012 at 9:12 am
“Obama must take the lead,” etc.:

The climate treaty is lose, lose. The treaty is not going to “fix” the climate which is not broken.

I agree. I didn’t agree with the link I posted–that’s why I put the phrase in quotation marks, followed by a dismissive “etc.”–to indicate it was from the article. The article is an indication of their desperation.

Stephen Richards

Perhaps they will get so down and lonely that they will help their cause and reduce the population ………of themselves

Mike Seward

“Delegates flew home from Doha without securing a single new pledge to cut pollution from a major emitter. ”
If they had an skerrick of integrity they would have walked.
What I have really enjoyed is the flurry of pseudo science hitting the media in the lead up and during Doha trying to act like eco viagra to keep the kindred spirits resolve stiff, so to speak. The latest doozy is the Nature Climate Change “report” that the 1990 IPCC “prediction” was spot on that got home page treatment from the AB frigging C, our national broadcaster here in Oz, with the usual case of the Trotskys. A precise prediction one of the usual suspects pontificated. LOL.
After seeing the latest solar activity data I am about ready to order me some more popcorn and settle in to watch the rest of this C grade melodrama play out, just to see the evil eco cretins get their comeuppances.