Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The UN appears to be worried they are becoming detached from the real world, so they have created a climate “safe space” for enthusiasts to contribute their ideas for encouraging climate action.
UN makes open call for ideas on fighting climate change
Published on 30/01/2018, 4:52pm
A new portal poses three pressing climate questions, with governments to take part in open talks with those who present answers in May
By Megan Darby
Researchers, campaigners, business leaders and members of the public have an unprecedented chance to influence UN climate talks in 2018.
In a radical opening up of the process, groups and individuals will present their ideas on climate action directly to government representatives during a meeting in Bonn this May.
The plans are led by Fiji, which holds the rotating presidency of the talks. They draw on Pacific “talanoa” storytelling traditions in a bid to make the process more inclusive.
In an exclusive interview, Fiji’s chief climate diplomat Nazhat Shameem Khan told Climate Home News that one of the major criticisms of the UN process was the lack of connection between those taking action and the UN diplomats.
“Dialogue is the way to start to bridge that gap, both philosophically and substantively,” said Shameem Khan.
…
Fiji’s concept for the May meeting is unusual in the extent to which it brings the two worlds together. There are to be three working groups to address the questions:
- Where are we?
- Where do we want to go?
- How do we get there?
…
At UN climate talks in Bonn in November, one negotiator told Climate Home News: “In here, we are becoming detached from the real world.”
…
Read more: http://www.climatechangenews.com/2018/01/30/un-makes-open-call-ideas-fighting-climate-change/
The Talanoa mandate on the UN portal website is bureaucratic gibberish;
The Conference of the Parties, by its decision 1/CP.21, paragraph 20, decided to convene a facilitative dialogue among Parties in 2018 to take stock of the collective efforts of Parties in relation to progress towards the long-term goal referred to in Article 4, paragraph 1, of the Agreement and to inform the preparation of nationally determined contributions pursuant to Article 4, paragraph 8, of the Agreement. At COP23, the Talanoa Dialogue was launched, to start in January 2018.
In accordance with decision 1/CP.23, paragraph 16, the efforts of Parties in relation to action and support in the pre-2020 period will also be considered as an element of the Talanoa Dialogue. Further information on the pre-2020 implementation and ambition are available here.
Read more: https://talanoadialogue.com/mandate
The UNFCCC site makes the purpose of Talanoa a little clearer;
“Talanoa is a traditional word used in Fiji and across the Pacific to reflect a process of inclusive, participatory and transparent dialogue. The purpose of Talanoa is to share stories, build empathy and to make wise decisions for the collective good. The process of Talanoa involves the sharing of ideas, skills and experience through storytelling.
During the process, participants build trust and advance knowledge through empathy and understanding. Blaming others and making critical observations are inconsistent with building mutual trust and respect, and therefore inconsistent with the Talanoa concept. Talanoa fosters stability and inclusiveness in dialogue, by creating a safe space that embraces mutual respect for a platform for decision making for a greater good.”
Read more: http://unfccc.int/focus/talanoa_dialogue/items/10265.php
I suspect contributions like “climate action is a useless waste of money” would be rejected as it is a “critical observation”, whereas a heart rending story of how climate change killed your pet goldfish by triggering an algal bloom in your homeopathic fish tank might get star billing at the Bonn conference in May, maybe even free tickets to attend the conference.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The UN should instead be asking themselves:
Why are we lying?
When will we stop lying?
And, last but not least:
Is there any real need for us to exist any more?
Why are we lying? To get money and power.
When will we stop lying? When the lying stops getting us money and power.
Is there any real need for us to exist any more? We must protect our phoney baloney jobs at all costs.
[Is this what you were trying to do? -mod]
Dang, used the wrong slash character.
I’ve heard that a little dab of lip gloss on the side of the mouth will arrest climate change and set the world aright.
LOL….I see what you did
See the Talanoadialogue Portal
There appear no limitations to “non-Party stakeholders”.
So please submit polite professional responses at the
https://talanoadialogue.com/
e.g., in summary:
I would like to remind all of the American Indian Fukawi Tribe, with a strong tradition of story telling:
Where are we? Want more money.
Where do we want to go? Get more money?
How do we get there? Get those who have money to give it to us.
Three more appropriate questions:
1. Where is our money?
2. How do we get more?
3. Who should give it to us?
…..and these three questions also
1. Where is the next climate party?
2. How do we get elections rigged like Putin and Maduro?
3. How much do Hollywood clowns cost?
question zero missing:
0) who are those “we” we are talking about?
The organisers of this initiative might find it useful to consult this paper :
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/16000870.2017.1327765
On the relationship between climate sensitivity and modelling uncertainty
Cecilie Mauritzen, Tatjana Zivkovic & Vidyunmala Veldore
Abstract
-“Climate model projections are used to investigate the potential impacts of climate change on future weather, agriculture, water resources, human health, the global economy, etc. However, climate projections have a broad range of associated uncertainties, and it is a challenge to take account of these uncertainties in impact studies and risk assessments. Knowing which uncertainties matter and which may be reduced via scientific research or political decisions can help policy-makers in making informed decisions, scientists in focusing their resources, and businesses in building resilience to uncertainties that cannot be avoided. On the global scale, the present political resistance or ability to move from agreements to significant action provides the largest uncertainty in climate projections, followed by the uncertainty associated with climate modelling itself. Here, we show that climate sensitivity is a very important source of model uncertainty over large parts of the globe not only for temperature, but also for precipitation and wind projections. Because ‘climate sensitivity’ is a collective term that encompasses a wide range of feedback mechanisms in the climate system, we may not know for a long time whether models with high or low climate sensitivities are more relevant for the twenty-first century projections. Nevertheless, investigations of climate impacts cannot wait. Here we argue that it is physically and statistically unsound to mix climate model with high and low climate sensitivities, and that the subset chosen for any impact study should depend on the question one is trying to answer”-
Note the last sentence and in their closing statement they say :
-“We therefore suggest that it is physically and statistically unsound to mix models from the two climate model families (high and low sensitivity models). But how to pick the family? One could pick a set of high-sensitive climate models based on a belief that those models are more physically reliable, a belief that finds support for instance in the finding of (Sherwood et al., 2014 Sherwood, S. C., Bony, S. and Dufresne, J.-L. 2014. Spread in model climate sensitivity traced to atmospheric convective mixing. Nature 505, 37–42.10.1038/nature12829 [Google Scholar]). Or one could pick a set of high-sensitive climate models if one’s aim is to provide advice guided by the precautionary principle. The precautionary principle states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of a scientific consensus that the action or policy is not harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an action. This principle was included in the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development and in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and has later been incorporated into many international agreements. In order to offer advice within the framework of the precautionary principle, one needs to make impact assessments based on the high-sensitivity projections (i.e. the worst case).
On the other hand, one could pick a set of low-sensitive climate models if one wishes to address the question: what is the least that can happen? What must we prepare for?
To summarise, we argue that it is physically and statistically unsound to mix climate model with high and low ECS, and that the subset chosen for any impact study should depend on the question one is trying to answer. “-
It is an open access article ( at least at the moment so if you want to save it do it now) .
Pretty standard left wing fare.
They believe in free speech, but only so long as you say what they want to hear.
This should be shown to or trump. Tell him his country is still funding this nonsense
Hey, they should come here for their dialogue. Lots of great advice too!
We deserve a round of applause for all of our help.
Where are we?
Carbon fueled Utopia
Where do we want to go?
Carbon-Free Hell
How do we get there?
Follow the Green path.
“Where are we?
Where do we want to go?
How do we get there?”
Last drinks please.
Sounds like The Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy 🙂
CHeers
Roger http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com
The UN-Muppet Show.
Signs Of The Times:
There was no mention of ‘Global Warming’ or ‘Climate Change’ in President Trumps State of the Union address to Congress nor in any of the democrat responses to his speech, that I saw. From a news report this morning, only the hard core socialist dictator-wannabe Bernie ‘Feel the Bern’ Sanders mentioned it after President Trumps SOTU speech.
#Winning!
And Trump said this: “We have ended the war on American Energy — and we have ended the war on clean coal.”
No doubt heads exploding like in ‘Mars Attacks.’
The gibberish translated: A meeting is called to see where we are re Artcle 4 to to decide how much cash we need frpm the pigeons.
And the Talanoa trademarked agenda?
Where are we?
Where do we want to go?
How do we get there?
Is a standard lefty (not too subtle) classic patronizing form of гас¡sм – gee these savages are very clever! This happens to be the agenda for every meeting, except in a subversive enterprise like climateering, the unspoken item on the agenda is “Why are we really here?” There is no secret that it has nothing to do with climate.
drat not volunteering “climateering”
Fixed. I hate typos, and sadly WordPress has no “Preview” function.
Regards,
w.
Thanks Willis. I don’t know why a telephone would make a choice so far removed from my intended word?
Oh, the last paragraph is superb!
w.
But not so good to see the worst of McCarthyism is alive and well in New York in the disgraceful
hounding by “respectable” scientists and liberals of Rebekah Mercer at the American Natural History Museum. No wait, this is more reminiscent of the third reich and its all too willing thugs than anything else. The UN climatistas and its fellow travelling Greens must love New York at the moment
I suppose the question, “Do ice cores measure what we think they do?”, would be out of the question.
This is where climate message consultants make their money. Of course it is a high profit margin business because it involves cut and paste work from previous clients but who will know the difference.
Can we get a video of these sessions? The world needs a record of this festival of consultants. Such a video could rival Plan 9 from Outer Space for a following.
The UN appears to be worried they are becoming detached from the real world, ….sorry remind me when they were attached to the real world ?
If the UN wants my advice on ‘fighting climate change’, then I’ll give it. “Don’t bother about it”. ‘Climate Change’ is the product of a self-serving, myopic, deluded, primitive, pseudo-intellectual, virtue-signalling load of bullshit that is on the way out, weighed down by its criminality.
Democratic, fair and impartial; “only submissions from verified stakeholders are allowed” . . .
Deadline for submission of inputs
The deadlines for submission of inputs are:
•2 April 2018 for discussions in conjunction with the April/May session (30 April – 10 May)
•29 October 2018 for discussions in conjunction with COP 24 (3 – 14 December)
Verification of inputs
Once received, all submissions will be verified to ensure the information is appropriate. It will then be registered and published on the Talanoa Dialogue platform.
As part of the verification process, we will authenticate you as a stakeholder in order to avoid possible misuse and to confirm sources of inputs:
•For Parties – only submissions from national focal points, or submissions on their behalf, are allowed
•For non-Party stakeholders – only submissions from verified stakeholders are allowed. Verification may include investigating your name and email with respect to your organization and/or a telephone call to you or your organization.
https://talanoadialogue.com/upload-inputs
Hmm isn’t the idea we’re all stakeholders when it comes to saving the planet?
I’d submit the following couple of suggestions for How To Get There:
– Lead by example. Both our leading organizations as well as leading persons. In how work, travel, living and leisure is performed.
– Look at what organizations and events have a massive pollution impact compared to their true benefit to society or nature and reduce these organizations and events. Some which come to mind (due to the mind boggling amount of construction and travel of participants, supporters and fans involved): Olympic Games and some massive world championships could be reduced from every year or every 4 years to every 5 years or even less frequent. Formula One and other racing events to have less races on the calendar instead of expanding. Less massive international climate and similar conferences where lots of people travel to but not much is accomplished relative to what’s invested to organize it.
– In each country, identify the worst polluters and help them to do better, with investments if necessary, instead of being repressive/fining or creating more bureaucracy or just waiting for others to take action. Allow for those helped to (partially) pay back later in case your help causes them reduced costs or other benefits down the line.
Why does the United Nations use the Flat Earth Society map for a flag?
This just proves the Alarmists are losing. They are desperate for input that will turn the tide of public opinion.
100%
Hmmm… well, this seems to be a variation on a theme they floated about five years ago. In March 2013, the UNDP launched a survey which one of the UN’s honchos blessed by declaring:
Participants were told that:
To the surprise of no reasonable person, “Action taken on climate change” was dead last! So the powers that be ditched the results in favour of those obtained from a 24-hour marathon amongst a carefully selected group of almost 10,000 in 97 countries around the globe. Presumably the UN powers that be had to do this in order to ensure that the information collected was “appropriate” 😉
For all the gory details, please see: UN survey: participants one day 10,000 trumps two year 8 million plus”