COP22 Green Groups: Where's the Money?

climate-cash

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

The Marrakesh COP22 climate conference has ended – and green groups are just waking up that without US financial support, nobody has committed any money to anything.

COUNTRIES APPEAL TO TRUMP OVER CLIMATE CHANGE AS COP22 ENDS

Environmental groups such as Greenpeace have welcomed the united front displayed by nearly 200 countries in Marrakesh in the face of Donald Trump’s campaign threat to quit the Paris accord on climate change.

The UN negotiations concluded in Morocco in the early hours of Saturday with an agreement to hammer out a rulebook by 2018.

Last year’s Paris Agreement left many details vague, such as how countries will report and monitor national pledges to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

The final text also urges rich nations to keep building towards a goal of providing 100 billion dollars a year to help developing countries address climate change.

But some agencies are disappointed by a lack of concrete targets.

I’m a little worried by the lack of financial support to help poor countries adapt. This conference has been taking place in Africa, it was generally agreed that there should be more money, but in concrete terms unfortunately these decisions failed to materialise,” said Lutz Weischer, team leader on international climate policy at Germanwatch.

Read more: http://www.euronews.com/2016/11/19/countries-appeal-to-trump-over-climate-change-as-cop22-ends

It is genuinely possible most of the members of groups like Greenpeace and Germanwatch really didn’t know where all the money was coming from. Sounds crazy, but think about it – all greens had to do in the past is make a lot of noise, and bundles of cash turned up. They never had any reason to question where the cash was coming from.

I suspect climate activists are only now waking to the horrible possibility that after years of partying on the US taxpayer’s dime, they really don’t have that many friends anymore.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
199 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 19, 2016 7:38 pm

Don’t you believe it. They knew alright, and they won’t give up without a fight.

Reply to  HotScot
November 19, 2016 7:43 pm

The huge problem that now confronts the UNFCCC is they believed Kerry and Obama last year when they said, “Don’t make the Paris Climate Deal a binding treaty. Keep the written language in it non-binding, else it’ll be a treaty that must be submitted to the US Senate. But don’t worry, Hillary will be the next President to keep the hustle going.”
Obama and Kerry gambled and lost. That is the harsh reality now facing the UNFCCC party crowd.

Reply to  joelobryan
November 19, 2016 8:13 pm

What was in it for Obama or Kerry?

rogerthesurf
Reply to  joelobryan
November 19, 2016 8:43 pm

“What was in it for Obama or Kerry?”
Curious George
They are possibly bought.
Cheers
Roger

Alaric
Reply to  joelobryan
November 19, 2016 8:47 pm

“What was in it for Obama or Kerry?”
Power and kickbacks.

SMC
Reply to  joelobryan
November 19, 2016 9:37 pm

Influence

Bryan A
Reply to  joelobryan
November 19, 2016 9:39 pm

To become the first President and Vice-president of the Peoples Republic of Earth

svbeachhouse
Reply to  joelobryan
November 20, 2016 12:21 am

This is for “Curious George” below (this system doesn’t allow direct replies to replies. Why? I don’t know).
Kerry: He’s a limousine liberal who is married to an heiress, Theresa Heinz of the food company fame.
He’s got a diagnosable serious case of “White Man’s Guilt”. He believes in income re-distribution largely due to guilt (he’s never had a real job in his life) and of course, he’s not exactly the type of “patriot” we think of with the true definition of the word.
Obama:
He too is all about income re-distribution. He sees this as the way to bring down the economy of the USA (his 20 Trillion in debt was a great start) and make the USA a weaker power in the world to allow for more robust competitors in China and Russia, not too mention the third world in general. It’s his way to accelerate the “one world globalist order” (at our expense). Personally, I think he really doesn’t like this nation and he’s done his best to “fundamentally change” it. That “change” was never in our interests.
He believes that Capitalism in the hands of the USA makes us too superior and he desires to make us as “unexceptional” as he possibly can/could. Americans have a unique knack of making things work well when given a chance. Our culture and traditions as well as our “system” (when left alone) is what’s made the world a better place.
Obama does not realize that if the USA is strong and our economy doing well, we are then in a position to truly export technology and make the world a better place for everyone. Especially in bringing cheap energy to the developing world to make clean water and air (yes air – does he think burning dung is good for people in their kitchens?) affordable and available to all.
I believe in a “nutshell” this is the answer to your question.

Alcheson
Reply to  joelobryan
November 20, 2016 1:00 am

Trump should submit Paris Agreement to the Senate as a treaty. It will go down in flames and thereby prevent the media from using as a political weapon against Trump. The Paris agreement will be null and void and thus any talk of needing four years to withdraw is nonsense.

Dahlquist
Reply to  joelobryan
November 20, 2016 1:01 am

svbeachhouse… Agree. Besides being a globalist and wanting to tear the U.S. down, he has also demonstrated that he hates the U.S. and is a closet islamist. This is something the Western Civilizations must come to understand and never let it happen again. The forces of this kind of ‘evil’ are still out there and plotting and we can’t let it stand. Our freedoms came very close to being taken away and shredded.
Ps. You can reply to an individual post, but you have to stand in line for it. Just scroll up to the last post with a ‘reply’ in blue at the bottom and you get your turn in line.

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  joelobryan
November 20, 2016 6:00 am

Obama’s several “agreements-which-are-not-treaties” are all worthless. Trump can just ignore them.

Reply to  joelobryan
November 20, 2016 6:35 am

Curious G: pay-for-play, kick-backs, corruption, “charitable” foundations, etc … at the highest level of our USA govt? please don’t tell us that it can’t happen here.
Just go have a little sit-down with madame hillary. she’ll tell you all about the birds and the bees.
and, if you do not think that she is telling you the truth just wait for the conclusions of the FBI investigation. yes, that one; the one that is ongoing regarding her criminal crime family foundation, which, i will bet, will show some level of involvement by b. insane obama.
his SOS was not using a govt-secure server; but rather her own personal private server for SOS business — a clear massive security violation — and obama does not know about this? yeah … right.
such corruption will continue until good people put down their collective feet … and tell these immoral politicians that they MUST stop this crap … and there MUST be hell to pay if they don’t.
ps: this is the reason why i believe that hillary must NOT be pardoned: these people MUST be informed of what this witch did by her massive disregard for USA security … and the corrupt politicians must understand that, if at some future date they choose to follow the same path of corruption, there will be serious consequences for their evil deeds against this nation and its people.

Flyoverbob
Reply to  joelobryan
November 20, 2016 7:51 am

Alcheson, November 20, 2016 at 1:00 am
There is no way to prevent Libtards from making a political controversy out of anything they so desire. I think Trump would be well advised to do what he knows best Act as the CEO of the administration. That is undo with a pen what his predecessor(s) did with a pen. Then get Congress to enact the appropriate legislation. I believe that executive orders should be allowed only when Congress is not in session and receive an up or down vote when Congress comes back in session.

Brooks Hurd
Reply to  joelobryan
November 20, 2016 8:19 am

Obama and Kerry did it for their legacies as well as for the chance to travel the world to future COPs as unelected members of the parliament of climate change. Furthermore, they were both living within the echo chamber that kept reinforcing the meme that Hillary Clinton could not lose the election.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  joelobryan
November 20, 2016 8:38 am

@ Johnny Cuyana

: this is the reason why i believe that hillary must NOT be pardoned: these people MUST be informed of what this witch did by her massive disregard for USA security … and the corrupt politicians must understand that, if at some future date they choose to follow the same path of corruption, there will be serious consequences for their evil deeds against this nation and its people.

Say it again, Johnny C, …… shout it from the rooftops, loud and clear.
All federal employees should be mandated to “punch” in and out on a Time Clock ….. and if they are not “clocked in” for 40 hours/week …… then their pay/salary should be deducted accordingly. You can force them to be “on-the-job” ……. but you really can’t force them to perform meaningful work while they are physically at work.
Then of course, a big majority of government jobs don’t entail performing “meaningful work”.

Reply to  joelobryan
November 20, 2016 11:41 am

I personally wonder how much money came from “Steyer, Soros, the Rockefellers et al cloaked as government money.

tgmccoy
Reply to  joelobryan
November 20, 2016 1:11 pm

With Kerry and Obama they got a lesson like Wile E, Coyote- their ACME product wasn’t approved
by the Senate, now the gravy train has jumped the track and the ACME Safe shadow is getting bigger.. .Unintended Consequences..

A C, of Adelaide
Reply to  joelobryan
November 20, 2016 3:19 pm

Alcheson
November 20, 2016 at 1:00 am
“Trump should submit Paris Agreement to the Senate as a treaty. It will go down in flames and thereby prevent the media from using as a political weapon against Trump. The Paris agreement will be null and void and thus any talk of needing four years to withdraw is nonsense.”
I like the way you think. Keep it legal and keep it constitutional.

Reply to  joelobryan
November 21, 2016 11:27 am

svbeachhouse,
Thank you for a concise and I think, accurate explanation of Obama’s actions while president. Angela Merkel is the same.

Reply to  joelobryan
November 21, 2016 5:48 pm

The sooner we bury this dead horse the better…otherwise it will keep stinking. The only thing we should do is encourage the clean burning of fuels and treating water wastes. Coal powered plants are fine if they use modern combustion technology and scrubbers to eliminate atmospheric soot, which is the main problem in China and India, aside from the dirty water. We in America essentially cleaned up our act by the 1980s, and have since been wasting a lot of money and effort trying to get the last 1%, which is really not necessary.

Mario Lento
Reply to  joelobryan
November 22, 2016 8:36 pm

Curious George November 19, 2016 at 8:13 pm
What was in it for Obama or Kerry?
Paid speeches, AKA Bill and Hillary private speaking fees for their influence.

Reply to  HotScot
November 19, 2016 8:03 pm

The other BIG problem for the CAGW-Climate Change Hustle is that the mainstream media in the US has a huge credibility problem now with the American public… for good reason.
We see now that State-chosen electors to the Presidential Electoral College in many of the Red states for Trump are being massively harrassed by Hillary Clinton’s machine. The Clinton’s are are not giving up without a dirty, behind the scens fight.
But for the Climate Change War the Left needs an effective media, a media that is respected and listened to. Doubtful that exists. The main media outlets in the US are still licking some gaping wounds. They are trying to figure out how it lost so badly after doing everything it could to stop Trump. Now do they get behind the Left again in a losing Climate Change message, a message every opinion poll show runs behind “how to get cat hair off your jacket”? (h/t to Jon Stewart who used that line)
At some point the MSM has to decide which side it is on. It’s very economic survival depends on honesty even if it hurts their Leftist ideology. And to be honest Climate Change and AGW are non-problems considering all the other problems facing the Developed countries and Western-style democracy.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  joelobryan
November 19, 2016 9:10 pm

MSM pretty much globally, certainly the UK with the BBC, Australia with the ABC and SBS, New Zealand with their national broadcaster (I forget). But there are some who fall for what is published as “science”.

Reply to  joelobryan
November 20, 2016 2:07 am

The (once) “mainstream media, if they ever wake up to the fact most people are now getting most of their political views from other people on the internet, and if they try to stop pandering to the minority interests who now support their views and try to “reach out”, will find that they’re trying to bolt the stable door after the horse is gone.
I much prefer reading other news outlets like …. WUWT!

Flyoverbob
Reply to  joelobryan
November 20, 2016 8:50 am

Your last sentence should have ended with “non-problems.” Climate Change is a natural function and AGW is a lie.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  joelobryan
November 20, 2016 10:09 am

Careful Joel,

At some point the MSM has to decide which side it is on.

They are not supposed to take sides. The fact that they are now and have been picking sides rather than reporting balanced news is one of the leading causes of the destructive polarization that exists in society today. Before the networks started treating their evening news hours as profit centers and the press rooms limited their hiring to alter egos there was a wall between the news rooms and the editorial departments. People believed they could count on accurate news from multiple sources and could refer to editorial and commentary when they sought different opinions and interpretations. The MSM today has become another Pravada, a propaganda organ for the elite.

Roger Knights
Reply to  joelobryan
November 20, 2016 2:17 pm

If CAGW is debunked, the MSM will never live it down. Their reputation will permanently go down a notch or two, even among the clerisy.

Reply to  joelobryan
November 20, 2016 3:45 pm

Their reputation didnt die with acid rain or the ozone hole debacles. Put their spectrum up for bid and test their utility in the marketplace versus cell phone data plans. I’ll know where my puts will be.

TA
Reply to  joelobryan
November 20, 2016 6:11 pm

“At some point the MSM has to decide which side it is on.”
Joel, I’m afraid you have a misperception of the Leftwing Media. That’s like saying, at some point Obama and Hillary have to decide which side they are on. Obama and Hillary already have a side and know what it is, and the same goes for the Leftwing Media which has the same side.
The Leftwing Media are hardcore Leftists and though there may be some who change their tune, you are not going to find many of them. The rest will just double-down on deluded. Don’t put much hope in the Leftwing Media coming to their senses. It’s not going to happen.

MarkW
Reply to  joelobryan
November 21, 2016 10:13 am

Our MSM wants to be like most of the rest of the world’s media. Owned by their respective governments. That way it doesn’t matter how much money they lose, they’ll get more.

MarkW
Reply to  joelobryan
November 21, 2016 10:15 am

Joe, it has only been in recent decades that the media has pretended to be a neutral observer. Go back and read older papers. They were quite partisan, and openly so.

John Silver
Reply to  HotScot
November 19, 2016 9:44 pm

Latitude
Reply to  HotScot
November 20, 2016 6:18 am

the united front displayed by nearly 200 countries….
You have to see the humor in this

Reply to  Latitude
November 20, 2016 12:27 pm

“World leaders” and not a one with the stature of a Churchill, Kennedy, Reagan, Eisenhower, Gandhi, De Gaulle, or even a Thatcher and Gorbachev. “World leaders?”

Latitude
Reply to  Latitude
November 20, 2016 5:01 pm

actually…I was referring to the 200 countries that get paid

November 19, 2016 7:39 pm

It was all fun and intoxicating with fame and seemingly unlimited money … until they ran out of OPM*.
*OPM: other people’s money.

Mike McMillan
Reply to  joelobryan
November 20, 2016 3:16 am

They ran out of OPM $20,000,000,000,000 ago. Didn’t seem to stop them.

PiperPaul
Reply to  Mike McMillan
November 20, 2016 5:00 am

But those are future dollars, so they don’t count. The Glorious Revolution will have happened by the time it has to be paid back.

RockyRoad
Reply to  Mike McMillan
November 20, 2016 5:03 pm

Yes, and I hear they’ll christen the new country Monopoly so they can use that currency to pay off the debt.
I hope everybody’s ready for a wild ride.

Felflames
November 19, 2016 7:46 pm

Money better spent building cheap sources of power for those in need, instead of lining the pockets of the corrupt.

November 19, 2016 7:53 pm

The gravy train has ended, please exit at the caboose. I want to see a real debate now, one with the other 97% that are afraid to speak.

PiperPaul
Reply to  Ian MacDonald (@ianmacdon)
November 20, 2016 5:02 am

I want to see a real debate now
That’s EXACTLY what must happen now. Televised internationally world-wide over multiple days.

markl
Reply to  PiperPaul
November 20, 2016 12:06 pm

And with many countries and no politicians.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Ian MacDonald (@ianmacdon)
November 20, 2016 6:43 pm

Senator Ted Cruz holding Senate hearings on ratification of the Paris Climate Treaty, anyone?

The Old Man
November 19, 2016 7:57 pm

Their Go Fund Me Campaign didn’t work?

PiperPaul
November 19, 2016 8:01 pm

Does this mean that now all those d*nier cheques will start arriving in the mail?

AndyG55
November 19, 2016 8:02 pm

GreenPiece, WWF, have lots of money..
Let them help out the developing African monarchs..
… or take away their tax-free charity status.

Hlaford
Reply to  AndyG55
November 20, 2016 10:15 am

Whoever is still delusional about charities must watch “Death to smoochy” http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0266452/
It shows charities in their full glory exactly as they are. I worked for UNICEF. I know. I’ve seen them all. They are ugly.

MarkW
Reply to  Hlaford
November 21, 2016 10:18 am

Not all charities are as corrupt as UNICEF. The UN corrupts everything it touches.

Reply to  AndyG55
November 20, 2016 11:58 am

So do Gates, Steyer, the Rockefellers etal, let them put their money where their mouths are and let them prove it.

MRW
Reply to  asybot
November 21, 2016 1:46 pm

What “Gates, Steyer, the Rockefellers etal” understand, asybot, is how the US federal monetary system works, and the majority of Americans don’t. Americans still think as if we’re on a gold standard, where you need to get income before you can spend etc, and when the federal government would “borrow” money in the money markets to protect the nation’s gold supply (pre-1933). FDR created the middle class by taking advantage of the domestic dumping of the gold standard in 1933/1934, which led to the greatest period of prosperity for the American people. (BTW, if anyone listened to the current William DeVane argument to put his money in gold in 2011, he would have lost 1/3 of his money in the time since, with no guaranteed protection of the prinicpal, and collecting no interest to boot. US treasury securities give you that safety and security.)
However.
All that changed when Nixon took us off the gold standard internationally in August 15, 1971. Journalists didn’t report the profound effect (greatest thing Nixon ever did) it could have on increasing US prosperity. (I say “could” because few know how that works.) First, journalists didn’t understad it. Secondly, journalists were covering Nixon’s upcoming election at the time, then Watergate, and the oil embargo. But international bankers and industrialists caught on. Rockefeller and Rothschild dreamt up the Global Warming scare to take advantage of it, create global governance, eventually get a global currency, and control of world governments because the people would be mewling for protecting the polar bears, etc. or shuddering about CO2. Rothschild was terrified, however, what would happen if Switzerland decided to nationalize the Rothschild banks as they did in France in 1981–what Mitterand did to his cousin Guy–and if it dropped the Swiss Franc and adopted the upcoming Euro. His bank would be finished. Baron Edmond de Rothschild (Geneva) called himself “Mr. Environment,” and David Rockefeller was “Mr. Development.” Wish I could link to an old paper Denver CO article I have with these two describing themselves as such in September 1987 during the 4th Worldwide Wilderness Conference in Denver, where de Rothschild specifically said that they were going to create a Global Warming campaign.
It was a good scam. Done in plain sight. They couldn’t accomplish it during COP19 in 2009. But they proceeded with setting up the legal framework in the interim anyway: TPP, TTIP, TISA. All intended to wipe out national jurisdictions in favor of multinationals operating out of Geneva (where Obama’s current US Trade Representative Michael Froman is ensconced; he was previously in charge of COP19) under the UNFCCC umbrella dictating what the new global rules are going to be, what nations can no longer decide for themselves, and where they get to dictate to the treasuries of monetarily soveriegn countries like the US, GB, Canada, Japan, and Australia, what they have to cough up. The US Treasury dispenses this cash without having to go through Congress. That is what they are biotching about in the leading post above.
But you can’t get people to see this without understanding how US federal accounting works (double-entry), and everyone is still stuck on 40-year-old conspiracies about the Federal Reserve, and fairytales about a London cabal owning it. Anyone who has ever used the double-entry accounting system Quick Books, (not Quicken), knows that you can’t have a debt without an asset. Ever hear the debt-clock hawks talk about the matching asset-clock?

MRW
Reply to  asybot
November 21, 2016 1:59 pm

Test. (Posts aren’t taking.)

MRW
Reply to  asybot
November 21, 2016 8:25 pm

Ever hear the debt-clock hawks talk about the matching asset-clock?
There are two sides to the ledger, people.
[asybot, in September 1987, Rothschild called what he was planning a “Second Marshall Plan.” That means using government money, not their own.]

Tom Halla
November 19, 2016 8:02 pm

The green blob was all in for Hillary Rodham Clinton, and expected a good return on their investment. Instead, they are in the same situation as the Gulf states that made contributions to the Clinton Foundation–sitting around wondering what happened.

wws
Reply to  Tom Halla
November 19, 2016 8:52 pm

I do kind of have to smile at all these so called “smart people” all around the world, investing hundreds of millions of dollars with absolutely nothing to show for it, and the Arkansas Bumpkins walking away scot-free with a huge chunk of it in their pockets.
and if I had a nickel for every wonderful, visionary project which had this as its epitaph:
“it was generally agreed that there should be more money, but in concrete terms unfortunately these decisions failed to materialize”

SMC
Reply to  Tom Halla
November 19, 2016 9:42 pm

As long as we don’t get complacent. Remember, it took darn near the entire nation to offset the so called liberals in California, New York and Illinois in the electoral college.

sciguy54
Reply to  SMC
November 19, 2016 10:37 pm

There are more than 3,100 counties in the US. Clinton won more votes than Trump in fewer than 60. One could easily drive for 1,000 miles and not pass through a county in which the majority voted for Clinton. Yet as the polls began to close the MSM was 90+ percent certain that Clinton would easily win.
There are huge disconnects between perception and reality in the US sociopolitical landscape. The cognitive dissonance is palpable, especially in the quarters where most of the money for climate research is consumed. These are interesting times.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  SMC
November 19, 2016 11:31 pm

Please be aware that the State of California still has “millions” of absentee ballots to count (according to a recent radio report). I look forward, in February (maybe) getting a fair report of the actual, real popular vote count by county, state and across the entire US, including all the absentere ballots and the provisional ballots.

Dahlquist
Reply to  SMC
November 20, 2016 1:16 am

I was born in and still live here in the brain dead state of California. And I hate to say, I would move to another, more sane State, if I wasn’t tied down here. The average citizens here are like brain dead zombies and simply follow party lines. I did vote, but knew my vote for President would not mean a thing amongst the millions of sheep here. I am a stranger in a strange land.

Reply to  SMC
November 20, 2016 5:19 am

Clinton only prevailed with a plurality because 1) an estimated 3 million illegals cast a ballot, mostly in California and 2) Johnson’s stupid and arrogant Libertarian run stole votes mostly from Trump.

Richard Howes
Reply to  SMC
November 20, 2016 8:52 am

Many voters that would have voted for Trump simply did not turn out in the large, heavily blue states. The popular vote would have been much closer had they.

James Francisco
Reply to  SMC
November 20, 2016 10:17 am

Dahlquist in California. If it wasn’t for the high cost of living in costal California I would put up with the zombies to live there. The great weather would be worth it. Those zombies are everywhere.

TA
Reply to  SMC
November 20, 2016 6:24 pm

“Remember, it took darn near the entire nation to offset the so called liberals in California, New York and Illinois in the electoral college.”
Yeah, we are far from safe. We have a four year respite, but we need to get organized now to beat the Left in 2020, because they are snapping at our heels, too close for comfort. And four years is going to go by fast!
A successful Trump presidency will help this effort enormously. And I expect to see a successful Trump presidency.
We got SO lucky this time. And Trump’s competence had a lot to do with it. They knew they were going to win a couple of days before the election took place, according to at least one Trump advisor. They knew something noone else knew.

John M. Ware
Reply to  SMC
November 20, 2016 6:43 pm

We have received reports that Hillary got more “popular” votes than Trump. We have also heard reports of widespread voter fraud–votes from illegal aliens, dead people, people voting in multiple states, felons voting (even current prisoners), and other categories. So what is the actual, true count of legal votes by actual, true, living, registered U.S. citizens? I’d be willing to bet that the final figures on that question would favor Trump.

MarkW
Reply to  SMC
November 21, 2016 10:19 am

There’s been talk in CA about seceeding.
Perhaps the rest of us can support them in this desire.

markl
Reply to  MarkW
November 21, 2016 11:32 am

+1….but it will never happen.

Tom Halla
Reply to  markl
November 21, 2016 11:37 am

But remember what happened the last time there was a seccession in the US. California really, really needs reconstruction:-)

markl
Reply to  Tom Halla
November 21, 2016 11:44 am

+1 It’s the epitomy of a welfare state that gives the middle finger to the rest of the country in its’ quest to become more Socialist than Democratic. (Everyone please spare me the admonition that I don’t know the difference or anything about Socialism and Democracy).

MarkW
Reply to  SMC
November 21, 2016 10:22 am

Stole votes from Trump? Those were Trump’s votes? When exactly did he buy them?
From the reports I’ve read, Johnson’s voters were mostly from demographics that Hillary won handily.
Regardless, most of them would have stayed home had they not been able to vote for Johnson.

MarkW
Reply to  SMC
November 21, 2016 10:25 am

Just prior to election day in 2000, it was thought that Bush might win the popular vote while Gore would win the electoral college.
When asked about this Gore’s campaign manager replied that had the election been a popular vote contest, both candidates would have run vastly different campaigns.
Popular vote is a meaningless number in our elections. Republicans don’t bother to vote in blue states.
Democrats don’t bother to vote in red states.

Reply to  SMC
November 21, 2016 6:03 pm

However, if the popular vote was so important, Trump would have spent time in California. Hillary would have still won but the vote count would not have been so lopsided.

RiHo08
November 19, 2016 8:02 pm

Its hardly imaginable that groups of environmentalists haven’t yet figured out where the money comes from. Whether the money is for trips, or accommodations, or lobbying this or that governmental official. The money has to come from somewhere, and, if one looks closely, the money comes from others, ie, people extraneous to the spenders. Here is the rub. Keeping the spenders spending without knowing where the money is going. With a complicit media, the information of where the external dollars are going, is not visible.
All of this intrigue doesn’t matter until the money ends up harming people and contributing to the narrative of harm:: “we are from the government and we are here to help you.” Dreaded words indeed. The other harm comes from elections; ie, electing the wrong people for the campaign one wishes to forward. Warmists want a receptive crowd and revenue stream. Cut off the narrative. Show the narrative is flawed, and, the revenue begins to slow, eventually to a trickle.
We are politically in this scenario. Decreased revenue stream for a cause that vilifies most people who wish to live a life, compatible with one’s income. Too low an income, means, too little in the way of a comfortable life.
Middle income represents a comfortable life to most people. Removing job potential by sending jobs off shore, loss of good paying jobs represent a loss on the part of middle income people; or increasing the costs of energy such that energy costs become a burden in one’s way of life, and, the house of cards comes crumbling down. Why is this so strange?
Just simple daily living cost analysis seems to elude the Greens. their fatal flaw.

R. Shearer
Reply to  RiHo08
November 20, 2016 2:23 pm

Let them now travel using their frequent flyer miles.

markl
November 19, 2016 8:40 pm

Curious George commented: “What was in it for Obama or Kerry?”
Obama’s a fellow traveler and Kerry’s a useful idiot.

wws
Reply to  markl
November 19, 2016 8:53 pm

spot on. And just looking at the money trails, we’ve got to credit the Clintons and Gore as being Grifters Supreme!

Roger Knights
Reply to  markl
November 20, 2016 2:29 pm

If the Dems don’t toe the Green line, the Green party will garner as many votes as Nader did in 2000, spoiling the Dems’ presidential chances. That’s what’s in it for Obama and Kerry.

Javert Chip
November 19, 2016 9:16 pm

Well, here’s hoping that 97% of the money disappears…

dan no longer in CA
November 19, 2016 9:26 pm

Q: What’s the difference between ‘rich’ countries and ‘developing’ countries? A: Rich countries have governments that allow people to create wealth and developing countries do not. There are many examples of resource-poor countries that have become rich. N Korea has more natural resources than S Korea for example. More recently, thanks to socialism, Venezuela has turned from being a rich country to being a poor one. And who came up with this ‘developing’ term anyway? Who said that poor countries are developing? They just have governments that suck, and that won’t change as long as rich countries subsidize them.

LarryD
Reply to  dan no longer in CA
November 19, 2016 11:52 pm

“Developing country” is a euphemism. “Third World country” was deemed to harsh, don’t ‘cha know.
“Stop trying to help us” was the cry of one (African, I think) who decried how all the “development funds” got bled off as graft, and the remnant did more harm than good.
Jefferson was right.
“Every man wishes to pursue his occupation and to enjoy the fruits of his labors and the produce of his property in peace and safety, and with the least possible expense. When these things are accomplished, all the objects for which government ought to be established are answered.” -Thomas Jefferson

Bryan A
Reply to  dan no longer in CA
November 20, 2016 12:06 am

I LIKE the term “Developing Country” after all, in an ambiguous sort of way, the USA is a developing country. We develop many different things that help the world

George Tetley
Reply to  dan no longer in CA
November 20, 2016 3:03 am

dan no longer in CA asks,
” What is the difference between ‘rich’ countries and developing countries ? ”
Simple : rich countries have a light switch in every room in the house !

Reply to  dan no longer in CA
November 20, 2016 3:53 pm

I thought we weren’t allowed to quote Jefferson anymore?

TA
Reply to  dan no longer in CA
November 20, 2016 6:37 pm

“I thought we weren’t allowed to quote Jefferson anymore?”
That only applies to the Loony Left. Normal people can still quote Jefferson.

Bryan A
Reply to  dan no longer in CA
November 20, 2016 10:22 pm

Well George, if rich countries have light switches in every room in the house, extremely wealthy people have their lights controlled by their Smartphones

MarkW
Reply to  dan no longer in CA
November 21, 2016 10:27 am

How many resources did Hong Kong have?

November 19, 2016 9:28 pm

” Last year’s Paris Agreement left many details vague, such as how countries will report and monitor national pledges to curb greenhouse gas emissions.”
This is how incompetent you clueless bureaucrats are. You’re fired.

yarpos
Reply to  chaamjamal
November 19, 2016 10:31 pm

The meet , they chat, they party with other peoples money, rack up frequent flyer points and its seems most of the time they achieve nothing and agree nothing , other than work needs to be done in the future and its important that they meet again. Great gig if you can get it.

Steve
Reply to  chaamjamal
November 20, 2016 1:10 am

No, that’s not fair. It had to be written vaguely so that nations who had no intention of following it would still sign on. The illusion of progress is very important to these people.

PiperPaul
Reply to  Steve
November 20, 2016 5:07 am

The illusion of progress
‘Progress’ is a nebulous term. Towards what?
The illusion of competence.” There, that’s better.

Carolyn S
November 19, 2016 9:56 pm

Never mind where was the money coming from – where has it all gone? Has there ever been any accountability report? I presume that at least some of the millions extorted over the years was actually paid over. Or was it all in promissory notes?

Stephen Richards
Reply to  Eric Worrall
November 20, 2016 10:42 am

The UN has massive resources from their charities. UNICEF, Children, …………

commieBob
November 19, 2016 10:04 pm

I just had an epiphany about white guilt.
The liberal elites think white people, especially white males, are responsible for all the evils of the world. They have the concept of white privilege that they use to explain all the ills of the world.
Here’s my precis of what the liberal elites think.

The undereducated white working class is the beneficiary of white privilege. They deserve no help. It doesn’t matter if all the good jobs got sent to China. It’s their own fault for not getting Ivy League college degrees. No money should be spent helping them. All the money should be sent to third world countries whose inhabitants, not having white privilege, deserve it. The undereducated white working class are just getting what they deserve.

America is developing a really nasty class structure. Here’s a quote that describes how the liberal elite views the people of Appalachia but these days it applies more generally to the undereducated white working class generally.

Stereotypes are ugly. They do vicious cultural work and suggest that these people are not like us. We have nothing in common. And not only do we have nothing in common, but their behaviors and their traits are so deplorable that we don’t want to have anything in common with them. We need only make fun of them. We need only neglect them. We need only degrade them. That’s all they deserve. There’s a viciousness in that that is so inhumane and also justifies so much harm to the region and its people. link

… must resist … the … urge … to rant. (smoke issues from ears and nostrils)

SMC
Reply to  commieBob
November 20, 2016 6:22 am

Here is an interesting liberal article on White Privilege… Just in case you’re interested. Warning: may cause high blood pressure. 🙂
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is/

commieBob
Reply to  SMC
November 20, 2016 9:53 am

Actually, he’s sort of right.
I have had it easy. I have been lucky so many times. Sure I worked hard but I got so much because of my family and friends. I am the beneficiary of white privilege. Guilty as charged.
On the other hand, some of my (white male) friends have not had it so easy. They have to bust their butts to earn half of what I get for pension. I know female brown skinned professionals who make ten times what these guys earn by the sweat of their brows. For them, white privilege is a joke.

SMC
Reply to  SMC
November 20, 2016 10:04 am

Well, sure. There is always some truth to some stuff like this. The problem is, this kind of stuff gets turned into a stereotype and then everything goes sideways.

aeroguy48
November 19, 2016 10:27 pm

Thank God thing for credit cards, eh?

ossqss
November 19, 2016 11:16 pm


I hope this works from my phone 😉

Reply to  ossqss
November 20, 2016 2:58 am

God, I hate YouTube vids like this one, because they are a fraud. The pea isn’t under any of them, it’s behind. You can only get away with that on a video, so it’s just plain silly. When the trick is done for real, in front of people, it has to be done fast, by sleight of hand – but the pea is always under one of them. YouTube has a lot to answer for, and frankly, people shouldn’t promote YouTube vids like this one.

ossqss
Reply to  bazzer1959
November 20, 2016 9:23 am

That was the whole point of cheating and fraud and the green machine finance. Nothing to do with youtube.

Stephen Richards
Reply to  bazzer1959
November 20, 2016 10:45 am

A naïve view. You missed the point. Remember nuance and English word eludes me but its not sarc.

November 19, 2016 11:18 pm

Trump needs to explain to the extortionists of Big Green that since borders no longer matter they should address all future requests for money to “the globe”.

richard verney
November 19, 2016 11:34 pm

But why does it cost anything? Why is there a need for money?
I thought that the claim by greens was that green energy is cheaper than fossil fuel energy, so why does any one need any money?
The greens should forward plans to demonstate how African countries/developing countries can develop without any aid from the West/developed countries simply by African/developing countries using green solutions.

TA
Reply to  richard verney
November 20, 2016 6:58 pm

“I thought that the claim by greens was that green energy is cheaper than fossil fuel energy, so why does any one need any money?”
Someone has to pay the Greens to run everything. The Greens have to eat, you know.

MarkW
Reply to  TA
November 21, 2016 10:31 am

Be sure to eat your greens.

jones
November 20, 2016 12:19 am

“I’m a little worried by the lack of financial support to help poor countries adapt”
How about just build them a bunch of cheap oil/gas/coal fueled power stations then watch them take off on their own.
Nuclear too if they have the infrastructure and skills to run one…
Maybe I’m just a bigot/xenophobe/racist/Nazi………? I am white after all…
Oh, a rapist too since I’m male….

Skeptic
November 20, 2016 12:36 am

I’m sure Soros, Steyer and the many charities, foundations and trusts (Rockefeller, Hewlitt, Packard, Clinton, Pew, Tides, etc., etc.) could cobble together a billion or two a year for the next decade to promote this idiocy.

richard verney
Reply to  Skeptic
November 20, 2016 9:21 am

Don’t leave Gore out of it. I sure that he can chip in say $50 million each year through to 2030.

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
November 20, 2016 12:45 am

The 70s environmental movement related pollution aspects were sidelined by MNCs through UN, Rio Summit. Here global warming versus carbon dioxide was brought in. Since then this tirade is going on in full speed. Now with the Republican President-elect in USA there appears to be some change in global warming; to thwart this now MNCs are directly entered the arena under the disguise of “Climate Smart Agriculture”.
The major initiatives for the agriculture sector that were discussed frequently at COP so far are Global Alliance for Climate-Smart Agriculture (GACSA) and Adaptation of African Agriculture (AAA). While GACSA was launched at COP 21 in Paris, AAA has been launched at COP 22 with much fanfare.
Both of these initiatives are being promoted by Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) along with various governments, especially African countries. The founding membership and steering committee of GACSA include fertilizer companies, their front groups and partner organizations. Of the alliance’s 29 non-governmental founding members, there are three fertilizer industry lobby groups, two of the world’s largest fertilizer companies and a handful of organizations working directly with fertilizer companies on climate change programmes. This leaves a lot of ambiguity and raise serious concerns. For example, CGIAR, a FAO partner in GACSA, promotes climate smart “success stories”, which promote the use of fertilizers and genetically-modified organisms (GMO), and make no mention of traditional agriculture system. There is a fear that seeds, fertilizers, pesticides promoted by big corporations multinationals will be pushed in the guise of climate smart agriculture. This will make farmers more and more dependent on market forces and hence increase their vulnerability and reduce their adaptive capacity.
With no green fund, MNCs are openly coming up pushing their products. CGIAR has 13 centres over different parts of the globe [one in Hyderabad, India — ICRISAT — to promote MNCs agenda.The target is developing countries.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

Richard Patton
Reply to  Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
November 20, 2016 6:01 pm

Do us a favor. Not everyone is familiar with your acronym vocabulary. The first time you use an acronym (unless it is common such as MSM) let us know what it is. MNC isn’t even in my unabridged dictionary.

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Reply to  Richard Patton
November 20, 2016 10:08 pm

MNC = multinational Companies
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

Dave Fair
Reply to  Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
November 20, 2016 7:02 pm

Dr. Reddy, your “traditional agriculture system” will not feed the globe. For example, less than 2% of the U.S. population now live on farms, yet the U.S. is a major supplier of world foods. We barely fed ourselves when 90% of us lived on farms not long ago. Famines used to control world populations.

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Reply to  Dave Fair
November 20, 2016 10:28 pm

Dave Fair — US is producing for export, particularly GM foods. At present farmers in US following mechanised farming using irrigation and chemical inputs. If you look at Mississippi river flows that contain runoffs from the farm fields containing chemical input residues. This created a dead zone in thousands of square kilometers in Gulf of Mexico. Also, the food produced [whether GM or non-GM] contain chemicals. This food created health hazards [new diseases]. Also, FAO says around 30% of what is produced is going as waste — and thus the natural resources used to produce that much –. All over the world farmers groups innovations are out yielding with the chemical input technologies. However, MNCs PR groups thwarting this technology entering the farms through purchasing politicians. In Nepal US Embassy pressurised the government to adapt GMOs — on this stories were published.
Therefore, by reducing wastage, by efficient use of water resources, making animal husbandry as part of farming and adapting farmers innovative technologies, it is not difficult to meet the food needs of the growing population.
Large part of water resources are going as waste water through pollution. We need to bringing down this wastage through proper planning.
India has around 17% of the world population with 2.6% of the land area and 4.6% of water resources. We are meeting the food needs even after 40 to 50% is going as waste in transport, poor post-harvest technologies, poor storage facilities to protect from un-seasonal rains, etc. Here also the fodder produced is going as waste as animal hate to eat that.
Planning is more important. Without that we achieve nothing except creating new diseases, new drug manufacturing industries, hospitals and create more pollution and thus reducing potable water supply.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

Dave Fair
Reply to  Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
November 21, 2016 11:23 am

Who gets to do the worldwide, comprehensive social and economic planning required, Dr. Reddy?

Alcheson
November 20, 2016 12:52 am

I think it is a great idea for Trump to submit the Paris Agreement to the senate as a Treaty. Once the Senate votes it down in a landslide, it becomes null and void. Also, those few senators that vote FOR it will targeted in the primaries/electrion. A win-win.

Thomas Gasloli
Reply to  Alcheson
November 20, 2016 7:38 am

Wrong. It doesn’t need to be submitted to the Senate for a vote to be void. Since it isn’t a treaty and was only signed by Obama it is only a valid agreement for Obama. All President Trump has to do is ignore it and it is void, which is the wisest course. Just ignore it, withdraw the finding of endangerment for greenhouse gases and all related regulation, eliminate the subsidies for wind & solar, and with that the international nightmare of the climate change fraud is over.

Stephen Richards
Reply to  Thomas Gasloli
November 20, 2016 10:48 am

Thomas we know that but submitting it to the houses totally kills it, withdrawing leaves it open.

TA
Reply to  Thomas Gasloli
November 20, 2016 7:06 pm

Well, you know, there is going to be one heck of a ruckus put up by the Left worldwide over Trump not going along with CAGW, so it might be a good idea to submit the agreement to the U.S. Senate in order to offically terminate it, and spread the credit around to the U.S. Senate and the people who elected them, instead of letting all the vitriol focus on Trump himself.
There is no chance the agreement will pass the U.S. Senate. If the Left pulls some trick to hold up the vote, and stretch things out, Trump can still just ignore implementing it for as long as he wants. Noone can make him implement it, and he can just say he is waiting on the U.S. Senate to vote before taking action, and put the onus on whoever may be holding up the vote.

TA
Reply to  Thomas Gasloli
November 20, 2016 7:10 pm

I suppose it would also be possible for the House and Senate to pass a bill specifically repudiating the Paris Agreement, if there was some reason not to submit the agreement as a treaty to the U.S. Senate.
Lots of ways to kill this thing. We just want to spread that credit around as widely as possible.

Gp Home
November 20, 2016 1:01 am

This should be in Trumps speech to congress…”this is the moment when the rise of the oceans began to increase and America began to heal”.;

Sasha
November 20, 2016 1:44 am

Obama and Paris
The UN did not make an agreement with the United States. The UN made an agreement with Obama, who did not have the authority to make such commitments on his own. He knew it, and he was told it needed to go to Congress and get their approval for it to be binding. He did not. This was all out in the open for the whole world to see.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Sasha
November 20, 2016 2:39 pm

Not only that, but the Senate’s Republicans sent a letter to the Green officials in Paris saying that Obama’s commitment didn’t commit the US.

November 20, 2016 2:09 am

In the past, I’ve made a special effort to find out what was happening at these COPs.
This year … well … to be honest I thought it was in December.
It just didn’t seem to matter.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Scottish Sceptic
November 20, 2016 6:46 am

Fortunately, Rebel Media has been there, to give the true picture of what is going on there, not just what they want people to see. Lots of vids available, including one where Marc Morano tries to shred the Paris Agreement, but is stopped, and escorted away by UN goons:

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
November 20, 2016 12:30 pm

OH that lovely tolerance,, equality for all and their love of free speech when you are liberal! The Rebel could have used some Canadian Peacekeepers there!

Andre
November 20, 2016 2:25 am

I think it’s very clear that the UN and their globalist allies are using the pretext of climate change as an instrument to bring about “a rapid and complete transformation of the global economy”.
http://www.unric.org/en/latest-un-buzz/29623-figueres-first-time-the-world-economy-is-transformed-intentionally
https://www.georgetown.edu/UN-official-Rachel-Kyte-sustainability
http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/news-and-diary/12105/speech

arfurhaddon
November 20, 2016 2:25 am

I think it’s very clear that the UN and their globalist allies are using the pretext of climate change as an instrument to bring about “a rapid and complete transformation of the global economy”.
http://www.unric.org/en/latest-un-buzz/29623-figueres-first-time-the-world-economy-is-transformed-intentionally
https://www.georgetown.edu/UN-official-Rachel-Kyte-sustainability
http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/news-and-diary/12105/speech

November 20, 2016 2:27 am

The biggest scam artist ever seen in US history has just been elected President. The US has changed from being a Democracy to a Kleptocracy. I would not be overly concerned about funding green issues, just keep a close eye on Mr. Borgia and his family who are set to make Swiss bankers very wealthy. Interesting that he must be the first President to enter office at the same time as spending millions of dollars paying off law suits. Never mind, it’s peanuts compared to the cash he is likely to skim from the national coffers.
There is substantial amounts of material out there, but this is a good primer.
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/9/28/12904136/donald-trump-corrupt

Catcracking
Reply to  Gareth Phillips
November 20, 2016 6:33 am

Garth,
Did you forget that Bill Clinton paid off a sexual harassment lawsuit as he entered his second term complements of a complicit media who sold the concept of Democrats can do anything and still get elected? He also lost his licence to practice law.

Janus100
Reply to  Gareth Phillips
November 20, 2016 8:33 am

It remains to be seen…
I am not a fan of Trump, but he managed to beat Hillary and ousted the green mafia.
So, as far as I am concern, “so far so good”
His Choice of staffers looks good to me too.
Carry on, Donnie.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Gareth Phillips
November 20, 2016 9:22 am

Now that their worst fear has materialized (President Trump), the Left-wing Trump bashers are in full-throated banshee style spittle-flecked rage. So yeah, there would be lots of “material” out there.

Chris
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
November 20, 2016 10:10 am

No need for rage on Trump, his actions speak for themselves. He sold a bill of goods to Trump supporters about “draining the swamp” in DC. Turns out that all his Cabinet selections are DC insiders or long term industry bankers. You got conned.

SkepticGoneWild
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
November 20, 2016 12:40 pm

Would you like some cheese with that whine?

TA
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
November 20, 2016 7:30 pm

Good point, Bruce. If the Left cannot find defamatory”material’ then they will just make some up, so they always have plenty of ammunition to use.
Trump isn’t perfect, but compared to Hillary Clinton Inc, he is a choirboy.
Hillary was Gangster Al Capone in a skirt. And she would have taken her whole extensive crime family into the White House to start putting the screws to the American people. That might have been the end of true freedom in these United States.
But by Gosh, that’s not going to happen, is it. Providence has smiled on us.

Richard Patton
Reply to  Gareth Phillips
November 20, 2016 6:11 pm

It is common in our legal system when the costs to defend oneself exceed what one is willing or able to pay, then one settles out of court. If it costs you a hundred million to litigate but settling out of court is only twenty then you pay the twenty million even if you are in the right.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Gareth Phillips
November 20, 2016 7:07 pm

Sour grapes, Gareth? [If you don’t know the reference, read the fable.]

MarkW
Reply to  Gareth Phillips
November 21, 2016 10:34 am

It really is fascinating how socialists actually do believe that the other side is 100% evil while their gods are 100% pure.

November 20, 2016 2:39 am

I don’t think Germanwatch is getting much from the US taxpayer. According to their accounts
http://germanwatch.org/de/download/16432.pdf
their biggest chunks come from the German government ministries of science and environment, plus the European Commission of course (so we Brits are paying our share) plus Toyota, the Munich insurance business, and a number of charities supposedly tackling hunger in the 3rd world.
All this so that Germans can watch Germans.

Reply to  Geoff Chambers
November 20, 2016 7:14 am

All this so that Germans can watch Germans

.
That’s what they do.
Angels Merkel is from the former East Germany.
Neighbors watching neighbors and ratting on them.
Leopards don’t change their spots.

KenB
November 20, 2016 2:49 am

Ah well the sheep are waking up (slowly) to something we knew all along in dealing with the arrogance, the corruption of climate science. The money they had for the taking, the political regressives, that had branded themselves as “progressives” as it sounds so much more posh and intelligent to the believer selfie class. A class that have been taught not to question or query what they have been taught in social re-education classes that replaced real education!.
All the time congratulating themselves, with pal review, science fantasy awards, the you scratch my back and I will nominate you too, laugh science, and peddling of taxpayers grant money.
Well the echo halls are now full of wailing and gnashing of teeth and reality and hate is their refuge, And yes we who have experienced this for so many years have to restrain our merriment as we must be sober and non-judgemental, but there is some delightful irony…

dennisambler
November 20, 2016 3:39 am
jones
Reply to  dennisambler
November 20, 2016 3:49 am

Heh, it’s all in the two words at the top of the placard above the “F”,
“WE DEMAND”….
Sums it up.

jones
Reply to  jones
November 20, 2016 3:50 am

Ah, and the one on the left… “we demand” squared then….

Patrick MJD
Reply to  jones
November 20, 2016 4:42 am

Faceless demands too.

Reply to  dennisambler
November 20, 2016 8:55 am

What is the climate? These people are the climate.

Reply to  dennisambler
November 20, 2016 11:51 am

I LOLed . Couldn’t believe it was not a pimp on the believers .
It’s like bums who straight up ask for beer money .

TA
Reply to  dennisambler
November 20, 2016 7:36 pm

Probably the last thing someone should do is make demands on Americans. You will not be received well doing such things. You will probably be rejected out of hand, doing such things. Americans don’t like being told what to do. By their government, or anyone else.

TA
Reply to  dennisambler
November 20, 2016 7:36 pm

Great picture, btw!

MarkW
Reply to  dennisambler
November 21, 2016 12:52 pm

At least they are being honest at last. It’s always been about the money.

dennisambler
November 20, 2016 3:47 am
knr
November 20, 2016 3:52 am

with an agreement to hammer out a rulebook by 2018.
of course that means finding anyone place for a jolly, but to be fair there is need for an airport that can handle quite a few private jets , so it cannot be just ‘anywhere ‘

Reply to  knr
November 20, 2016 10:50 am

Did Obama sign a blank check in Paris?
Typical democrat…We have to pass the bill so we can find out what’s in it.
Nancy Pelosi talking about the ACA and then that she never met Jon Gruber.
The good news is they want to keep her as their leader in congress.

pete
November 20, 2016 4:37 am

Spending billions to help poor countries adapt from climate change that will (not) happen 50 years from now while children at dying of hunger and disease NOW.

Reply to  pete
November 20, 2016 7:19 am

Pete, This income redistribution will never help the poor in the Third World. It will only harm the poor in rich countries.
Income redistribution a la the UN: Take money from poor people in rich countries and give it to rich people in poor countries.
Al Gore or John Kerry aren’t going to lose a thing.

TA
Reply to  RobRoy
November 20, 2016 7:43 pm

Excellent summation of income distribution, UN-style, RobRoy.

pete
November 20, 2016 4:42 am

Obama increased the federal debt from 8 trillion to 20 trillion with nothing to show for it. Not even a dummy Mars lander.

Reply to  pete
November 20, 2016 7:22 am

Mr.President gave away 5 million cell phones in his first term and won by three million votes the second term.

Reply to  RobRoy
November 20, 2016 12:47 pm

The phones were free alright but the phone bills? Not so much apparently.

highflight56433
Reply to  pete
November 20, 2016 11:46 am

Yep

Reasonable Skeptic
November 20, 2016 5:08 am

” This conference has been taking place in Africa, it was generally agreed that there should be more money, ”
Why? The geographic location of the conference means more money? If they had the conference in Stockholm it would mean less money?
It is generally agreed that people that attend COP conferences have no clue.

mountainape5
November 20, 2016 5:29 am

Why would the US give any dime to countries in Africa?
Are there no more poor people left in America?

MarkW
Reply to  mountainape5
November 21, 2016 10:39 am

Compared to most of the rest of the world, there are no poor people in the US.
Remember, the official poverty line is set as a fraction of either average or median income.
As the US gets richer, it takes more money in order to no longer be poor.

co2islife
November 20, 2016 6:27 am

Take a look at this graph. Clearly temperature is oscillating from the start in 1983 to about 1998. That is also the period where actual data was being used. I assume the period post-1998 are the forecasts. What kind of modeler takes an oscillating object, and then forecasts its behavior to become linear? You have curvilinear data prior to 1998, and that curvilinear data creates a linear forecast? That is a complete joke. By what possible mechanism do they outline that could turn a curvilinear object into a linear object in the post-1998 period? How does this “science” have any credibility at all?comment image

techgm
Reply to  co2islife
November 20, 2016 6:35 am

Plus, the 70s were a period of cooling.

dan no longer in CA
Reply to  co2islife
November 20, 2016 11:12 am

Are these temperatures as recorded, or after ‘adjustment’?

TA
Reply to  dan no longer in CA
November 20, 2016 7:53 pm

Dan, The UAH satellite has had minimal adjustments while the Hadcrut4 surface chart is the product of much larger adjustments. The most accurate, dependable chart, imo, is the UAH chart. As you can see, it is running much cooler than nearly all the CAGW models predict.

TA
Reply to  dan no longer in CA
November 20, 2016 7:57 pm

And Dan, as you can see, this original UAH satellite chart looks a little different from the UAH profile on the combination chart. Notice the year 1998 on both charts. On the original, which accompanies this post, you can see that 1998 appears higher than it does on the combination chart. I don’t know why there is this discrepancy, but go by the original in this post, not the combination chart.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_October_2016_v6.gif

TA
Reply to  co2islife
November 20, 2016 7:48 pm

“How does this “science” have any credibility at all?”
It has no credibility. It is pure speculation. The chart is a visualization of just how much they have failed. But when your livelihood depends on it, you will hang on to the speculation as hard as you can and that’s why climate alarmists keep repeating their mantra of “hotter and hotter”.

techgm
November 20, 2016 6:31 am

“It was generally agreed that there should be more money.”
What a shock. The left and other ne’er-do-wells always agree that should be more money, especially when it’s OPM.

Reply to  techgm
November 20, 2016 10:54 am

I read The 5000 Year Leap.
Africa had real head start and what have they got to show for it?

observa
November 20, 2016 6:35 am

“I’m a little worried by the lack of financial support to help poor countries adapt. This conference has been taking place in Africa, it was generally agreed that there should be more money, but in concrete terms unfortunately these decisions failed to materialise,”
It’s a familiar tale-
http://www.wattclarity.com.au/2016/11/a-big-disconnect-between-words-and-actions/

Scott
November 20, 2016 7:11 am

“It was generally agreed there should be more money”
They really didn’t know where the money came from, but they knew if they created an climate change effigy of some sort and chanted the right things, manna would magically appear. Basically sounds like a cargo cult that actually produced manna for a while. Doomed to eventually fail because that’s the thing about socialism, it’s great until you run out of other peoples money. I’m not going to call them stupid though, because it would have been stupid to not participate and turn down free manna.
When the money stops, the chanting is not going to stop for decades. They will honesty believe if they keep chanting the right things the money will magically appear. The damage inflicted by the climate fraud will be incalculable.

Dodgy Geezer
November 20, 2016 7:21 am

PLEASE….
Cut the finance – fine. But, whatever else you do, get some real, open unbiased science shone on the issue of Global Warming. In particular, look for the Tropospheric Hot-Spot. Do this all in the open. Examine the temperature history data and the adjustments. Look at all the findings…
This fraud will continue so long as the scientists are able to keep their dodgy data coming. Attack the problem at the root.

graphicconception
Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
November 20, 2016 9:51 am

I had similar thoughts. Why not stop funding AGW and from now on only fund Natural GW? The number of papers supporting NGW would “necessarily sky-rocket” as a result.

Bruce Cobb
November 20, 2016 7:50 am

Fiji to chair next year’s climate bash in Bonn: http://www.radionz.co.nz/international/pacific-news/318452/fiji-to-chair-next-year's-big-un-climate-meeting,-cop-23
Figures. With Fiji, you not only have a small island country first in line for climate cash, but you get the double-whammy appeal to emotion with the myth that they are vanishing beneath the waves, and the fact that they are tiny. They are already trying to brow-beat and Guilt Trump into changing his position.

Rhoda R
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
November 20, 2016 12:55 pm

I hope the federal government declines to fund any travel to cop23.

Resourceguy
November 20, 2016 8:50 am

Where’s the money? Still in my pocket

Reply to  Resourceguy
November 20, 2016 10:56 am

I paid my mortgage with my money.

Green Sand
Reply to  Resourceguy
November 20, 2016 2:02 pm

Aye, so is mine and that is where it is staying!

Resourceguy
Reply to  Resourceguy
November 21, 2016 7:33 am

….and it’s going to stay in my pocket over the next four years too.

tom s
November 20, 2016 9:02 am

Drain this G$$dam swamp! 100’S of billions to fight climate change? WTF? Disgusting on all fronts and especially so knowing that some of my personal funds are going to these complete, unadulterated thieves!

Newminster
November 20, 2016 9:40 am

Interesting that while the words “climate change” still appear, more and more they leave the impression that they are there only because there is a “tradition” that they should be, like mince pies and holly at Christmas (sorry, Americans will have to think up their own examples maybe!), everyone does it but nobody can remember why.
They are at last getting close to coming clean on this and admitting what Edenhofer said six years ago, that the IPCC and all these climate shindigs are nothing to do with climate and everything to do with redistributing the world’s wealth away from rich countries.
But past experience (and the pronouncements of the likes of Strong, Ehrlich and others) tell us that actually making poor countries wealthier is most emphatically not on the agenda. So where exactly is this money supposed to go after Europe and the USA have been suitably impoverished?

imamenz
November 20, 2016 9:57 am

Give them some of that internet money!

john
November 20, 2016 10:08 am

France has placed a pretty big bet on wind power and….
https://sputniknews.com/europe/201611201047648386-france-no-electricity/

Stephen Richards
Reply to  john
November 20, 2016 10:57 am

This is the socialist EU supporters. Hollande ‘s first fanny wants to close half of our nuclear and replace it with solar and windmills. They are destroying our ancient forests and wildlife as well as the only profitable industry in france , Tourism.
If there is anyone more stupid than a socialist I have yet to meet them and I have met some very stupid people.

November 20, 2016 11:03 am

Donald Trump expected to slash Nasa’s climate change budget in favour of sending humans back to the moon – and beyond
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/20/donald-trump-expected-to-slash-nasas-climate-change-budget-in-fa/

highflight56433
November 20, 2016 11:55 am

I have always said, just take away their money. And that includes the billions going to universities starting with OSU for firing Nicholas Drapela and WWU for their cruel treatment of Don J. Easterbrook and many others.

Mouse
November 20, 2016 12:17 pm

Conrad

Bill J
November 20, 2016 1:03 pm

I don’t agree with the conclusion that green groups didn’t know where the money was coming from. They knew exactly where it was coming from. You can’t guilt China into giving more money like you can the US. And that’s why they’re so worried about the Trump administration. The end of the gravy train is at hand and the pigs are scrambling.

Robber
November 20, 2016 2:40 pm

Wasn’t Paris the definitive agreement?
But now in Marrakech they have an agreement to meet again in 2018 to reach agreement on the rules.
And in the meantime, plenty of nice places to meet and socialize.
6 Dec – 9 Dec: Scoping of the IPCC Special Report on “Climate change and oceans and the cryosphere”
(Monte Carlo, Monaco)
12 Dec – 18 Dec: Decision on Scoping Nominations (SR2)
13 Dec – 16 Dec: TFI – 14th Editorial Board Meeting for the IPCC Emission Factor Database
(Bali, Indonesia)
But wait, IPCC have a strategic five year plan of meetings. The three Working Group contributions to AR6 will be finalized in 2021 and the AR6 Synthesis Report in the first half of 2022 in time for the first UNFCCC global stock take under the Paris Agreement in 2023.

Bruce Cobb
November 20, 2016 2:46 pm

Will they take quatloos instead? Plenty of those still left I think.

Jay
November 20, 2016 3:13 pm

That blowhard Hollande tries to threaten Trump over the Paris scam. So funny, since he has NO enforcement tools to use if we back out. Hey Francois! Anything that’s done can be undone!

Radical Rodent
November 20, 2016 3:23 pm

I suspect climate activists are only now waking to the horrible possibility that after years of partying on the US taxpayer’s dime, they really don’t have that many friends anymore.

Oh, I hope so. I truly, truly hope so.

November 20, 2016 5:01 pm

Thermalization and the complete dominance of water vapor in reverse-thermalization explain why CO2 has no significant effect on climate.
CO2 is not merely harmless, it is profoundly helpful. It is helpful in that it is plant food and, perhaps more importantly, it reduces plant’s need for water.
“It is DIFFICULT to get a man to understand something when his SALARY depends on him NOT UNDERSTANDING IT”. Upton Sinclair in the intro to An Inconvenient Truth. Ironically this is true also when applied to ‘warmers’.

TA
November 21, 2016 12:42 pm

Can anyone explain why the profile for the UAH satellite is so different in the two charts below?comment image
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_October_2016_v6.gif
Going by the original UAH chart you could draw a line from the 1998 highpoint to the 2016 highpoint and the line would be almost perfectly horizontal.
Whereas the UAH chart in the combination chart looks more like a clone of the Hadcrut4 chart, than the original UAH chart. If 1998, and 2016 are not on the same horizontal line, and everything in between is not below that line, then that is not a true representation of the UAH satellite chart. The profile should be much flatter than is shown in the combination chart, not heading up at an angle. It doesn’t resemble the original UAH chart at all.
Anyone know how that happened?

MarkW
Reply to  TA
November 21, 2016 12:54 pm

The top chart chops about 4 years off each end of the bottom chart. It also looks like the top chart has a longer smoothing period than does the bottom chart.

Dale S
Reply to  TA
November 21, 2016 1:17 pm

Aside from not having the same end date, the combination chart claims to depict running 5-year means, while the UAH-only chart claims to depict centered 13-month means. Given that, I wouldn’t expect the 1998 spike to be nearly as high on the combination chart.

TA
Reply to  Dale S
November 21, 2016 5:23 pm

“Given that, I wouldn’t expect the 1998 spike to be nearly as high on the combination chart.”
Why, Dale? The actual numerical difference between the highpoint of 1998, and the highpoint of 2016, is 0.1C. Just eyeballing the combination graph, it appears the numerical difference on that chart is double that or about 0.2C. The combination graph is distorting the real differences between 1998 and 2016. I don’t understand how the combination chart can be considered a valid representation if it is doubling the actual distance between 1998 and 2016.

willhaas
November 21, 2016 3:19 pm

According to the Paris Climate Accord, the rich nations are suppose to help the poor nations. The US has a huge national debt with huge annual deficits and huge annual trade deficits. The US is hence a poor nationand should be recieving payments from some of the rich nations. I want China to provide me with an all electric car and a solar chanrging system to chahrge its batteries. I cannot afford to tay anything for it so it must all be completely free.

%d bloggers like this: