JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

Cancun in a nutshell: nothing achieved but it’s a Big PR Success

UPDATED

After the awful post-Climategate-and-Copenhagen year, more than anything else, the Big Scare Campaign needed a PR win. And in that sense Cancun was a major victory. Nobody agreed to anything legally binding, Kyoto was not extended, and all they achieved amounted to nothing more than an extension of the yearly junkets, and the promise that the gravy train is not dead yet. But the headlines will warm the hearts of all on Team-Scare-Us. The most important thing for the side that’s losing friends, faith and face, was to regain momentum. They’re trying to stop the death spiral.

The Australian ABC is only too happy to help be a part of the cheer-squad:

Cancun climate talks reach ‘historic’ deal

BBC lends as much momentum to this as it can swing in a headline:

UN climate change talks in Cancun agree a deal

Andy Revkin, NY Times, talks about “pivotal moments” in reverential tones. It’s a bit like the second coming:

Consensus Emerges On Common Climate Path

No one has actually agreed to anything enforceable, but you’d have to read the subtext to know that.

Richard Black, BBC Environment Correspondent sums it up unusually well:

“The dog is resuscitated and up and running…

we’ll see how far it goes”

Expect the raves to grow in western recollections. But in the rest of the world things are different. India is congratulating itself for avoiding any commitment:

No commitments in Cancun Agreement,

India’s interests ‘protected

See below for the 4 ingredients for a PR victory, and then see how Australian tax dollars are used to “help the environment” by adding 5000 Mega Litres of water a day into a flooded river.

Val Majkus found the UN Official release for Cancun.

The four ingredients for a PR victory:

Ingredient 1: Play down expectations so no matter how dismal it is, no one can write that it was worse than expected. (This has the added bonus of  keeping away protesters and real analysts.)

Ingredient 2: Make you sure ask for money on behalf of some eminently appealing victims: “just for starters we need $100 billion for the world’s poor” — who could say “No”?

Ingredient 3: It’s all a draft anyway. It’s just a statement of intent that no one really has to fight too hard over or struggle too much with the fine print. It’s easy to get a consensus. And it makes for great headlines where editors drop the words “draft” and report it as a “done deal”. This helps the support crew feel like they are getting somewhere and adopt the language of “certainty” (also known as the “bluff”). The draft deal also turns all the draft-signees into “players” who will feel compelled to defend the draft they signed back on their own home turf. (Handy.)  It’s a bit like the people signing pledges to donate to Telethon, or to remain celibate: the public pledge only costs them a few words, but makes them more likely to carry out their pledge.

Ingredient 4: At the same time as expectations for Cancun were played down, a huge ambit claim quietly underwrote the whole arrangement. Utterly preposterous statements are spoken as if someone is just stating the bleeding obvious — the matter-of-fact-voice conveys the ambit under a cloak of invisibility: “We all agree to control the weather to within 2 degrees C?” Unstated is the assumption that we can. Stating the big position as if it were banal allows the Team to sneak in other massive goals as if there were piffling extras.  In the light of planetary thermostats, what’s the odd $100 billion? When you’ve been asking for world government and control of the weather, $100 billion here or there is really nothing. Thus, the PR win is that agreements for “$100 billion” can sneak through and be described as if they are just a spot of spare change, described as: “it’s not enough” but “it’s a heartening start”. In any other forum, mass protests in the street would begin for much less.

Nonetheless, this is not “$100 billion” in the bag by any means, not until 2020, and it’s not guaranteed either, but it sure softens up the path for success in the near future. Do you suppose the chances of the climate gravy train getting more money in the next few years have not just ramped up a notch? CEO’s of companies will note the words “$100 billion” and they’ll be asking a staff member to start writing down how they can get some of that action… plans will shift the company closer to the gravy train several years before the gravy itself starts to flow.

So the bottom line of Cancun was that the puppet masters have sharpened up their game, and played things much more strategically. They got over-confident before Copenhagen and deservedly crashed and burned, but using a disciplined approached (backed by billions of your dollars) this time they are working to turn the losing team around.

Despite the evidence of corruption, or of satellites or radiosondes, or of killer peer reviewed papers, and despite the savage cold weather! The scare team are paving the way and all roads lead to Rome (or at least the Club of). Nothing has changed.

Post Note: Look out! Bureaucratic incompetence writ large.

Part of the Eastern Australian flood IS Man-made.

Jennifer Marohasy has pointed out that despite the massive flooding in Eastern Australia, the Snowy Mountain Hydro Dam is committed to releasing 4000-5000 Mega litres of water daily to “help the environment”. Marohasy must have spent a whole day phoning and emailing bureaucrats, almost all of whom refused to answer a simple question about whether the extra water was being released. If the dam gates were always shut when floods were downstream, wouldn’t every person in the office be able to say that?

Did no one writing those contracts think to add in a flood clause? Did they assume Tim Flannery knew what he was talking about? Did the team in charge of planning the water flow “know” somehow there would not be another flood on the Murray?

Yep! Blowering Dam may be out of control, the water belting out of Burrunjuck, the Central Murray likely to go under again as early as Wednesday, but because of a formal agreement between NSW Office of Water and Snowy Hydro, involving an obligation to South Australia, approximately 500,000 megalitres, equivalent to one Sydney Harbour of water, must be released as soon as possible as environmental flow.

Read more here.

h/t Binny.

Richard C sums up Cancun in comments on the last post:

Summary

Funding – No “how” agreement

Kyoto Protocol – Extension undecided

REDD – Deal not done

Emissions – Not binding

Adaption and Mitigation – Fast Start distribution undecided

A spectacular non-achievement (for them)

A breathing space (for us – except for a large OZ disbursement)

 


BTW: Baa Humbug hit a popular note with this comment #7 on the previous post.

There is more analysis of the meaning (or lack of) from Cancun in my last post and comments below that too.


UPDATE: What did I say?  Success at Cancun is already being used as an excuse here in Australia

THE Gillard government will use progress at the climate change summit in Mexico to step up political pressure for a price on carbon at home. ” [The Australian Monday]

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)
Cancun in a nutshell: nothing achieved but it's a Big PR Success, 10.0 out of 10 based on 1 rating

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/2crw5nq

132 comments to Cancun in a nutshell: nothing achieved but it’s a Big PR Success

  • #
    pattoh

    I guess the only way this will ever sink in to the general public will be when the BOP blows out enough to drive interest rates to a level where mortgages are un-affordable.

    The length of election cycles & political careers may end up being very short then.

    00

  • #
    VinceOZ

    How do we get this to the general population.. without the MSM..

    Ido my part to 250 followers on Facebook, hoping the forward to at least two people..

    When do we break the barrier..

    Thank you Joanne

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    http://unfccc.int/2860.php
    here are what I think are the agreements
    Now I’d like to hear some analysis of them
    keep in mind press releases are usually very self serving
    and keep in mind what Lord Monckton was talking about is still waiting in the wings
    Now if you are angry about this please write to your elected representatives and try to get published on the MSM websites

    Jo’s website is where we skeptics feel supported but no use spending feeling supported – we have to go forth and fight for where we feel truth lies
    at the moment we owe about $176BILLION and that’s not including the NBN cost – at the moment our interest payments are more than the capital borrowed

    by the way my surname is MAJKUS not MALKUS Jo

    [Sorry Val. Fixed! -- JN]

    00

  • #

    This item on the BBC makes it pretty plain that the UN is incapable of eliminating major corruption from their food program in Somalia.
    At the same time the Beeb pushing the GW scare harder than ever with a series called the Climate Connection. “You wouldn’t stand under a tree in a lightning storm…” the ad begins, building up to “You wouldn’t send a child outside to play on a major highway.”
    Kids again. Well, at least they’re not exploding this time.
    UN to the rescue at Cancun? On the basis of their performance in Somalia, and other fields of operation, it’s obvious the fraudsters and con artists are just waiting for their chance.
    Sing! “When the UN takes a hand – it’s like pennies from heavennnn…”

    00

  • #

    I think we all knew there was going to be some bribes offered. (Though what they offered at Cancun is no different to that offered at Copenhagen, not even adjusted for inflation)

    On matters other than moola for rent seekers, I found the following report summarised the Cancun outcome quite well. Remember this is after 2 weeks of negotiations and thousands of lobbyists etc)

    The UN climate talks in Mexico’s Cancun have closed with the adoption of a deal to try to reverse the process of global warming.

    The participations agreed to discuss a possible extension of the Kyoto Protocols. Russia, Canada and Japan are against this.

    They argue that with the signatories accounting for a mere 27% of the global greenhouse gas emissions, such extension makes no sense.

    The participants in the Cancun meeting now have to approve a long-term action plan to prepare a post-Kyoto agreement.

    The above is from Voice of Russia. The Ruskies seem to be more in touch with reality than our MSM.

    So there you go.

    Did they agree to extend Kyoto? NO

    Did they discuss an extension to Kyoto? NO, not yet.

    What they did after 2 weeks of wining, dining and more than likely setting up personal business ventures for themselves was to AGREE to DISCUSS the POSSIBLE EXTENSION to KYOTO.

    And there you have the UN process in a nutshell. NUTS!!!

    00

  • #
    Morley Sutter

    There is one glimmer of sense from Cancun. It was reported that the International Monetary Fund (IMF), not the United Nations (UN) is to be in charge of the mythical $100 billion designated to “help” under-developed countries defend themselves against mythical global warming . Apparently the UN is mistrusted even in dreams.

    00

  • #
    Tim

    If nothing else, we see the persistance of this world-control behemoth that has been incrementally moving toward its goal for decades. It is unmoved by political setbacks, scientific argument or the will of the people. It takes no prisoners, somehow creates bottomless funding, and steamrolls forward regardless of simple facts that obliterate its entire reason for being. It also ignores the damage it is causing to the economies and to the peoples of the world.

    Why would it care? In fact this is its goal.

    00

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    Interesting response being sent by Dr. Judith Curry to the United States House of Representative Subcommittee:

    http://judithcurry.com/2010/12/09/testimony-followup-part-ii/

    So in one sense, the IPCC process is “working” in terms of garnering support for the UNFCCC treaty. But as a scientific assessment of climate variability and change and the vulnerabilities to climate change, I would judge the IPCC process not to be working. I don’t think that the IPCC can be repaired without a major overhaul of its justification and organization. For an IPCC under the auspices of the UN, I would recommend that the WG I assessment be undertaken under the auspices of the WMO/WCRP (and not the UNEP and UNFCCC).

    00

  • #

    “Cancun will be a very low-key affair. The attendees going there expect to achieve exactly nothing. I’ll repeat that; exactly nothing. ”

    http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2010/12/03/cancun-and-the-chinese-perspective-on-it/

    Apart from a vague end of conference fig leaf, nothing.

    Pointman

    00

  • #

    Cancun might have produce nothing of substance, but its got the Gillard government jumping up and down for joy already – be prepared for the carbon tax debate as soon as ink is dry on the PR campaign contract. They can smell the tax and the scent of newly saved polar bears..

    00

  • #

    Its a global game of Let’s Pretend with deadly serious and very real consequences. When it all comes crashing down around their ears (it will) their cry will be “we meant well, we didn’t mean for this to happen.” Yes they did!

    When you keep doing the same things and get the same consequences you clearly INTEND to achieve those consequences. Your words to the contrary and your claims of “good intentions” are irrelevant. Your continued actions tell the truth.

    00

  • #

    Charlie: #8
    December 12th, 2010 at 11:57 pm

    Charlie this has nothing to do with polar bears or global climate. (I know you were being ironic)

    Labor needs the tax to help balance the books. Most of this proposed carbon tax will end up in general revenue.

    Greens want this tax, and they want it as high as possible knowing this will slow down consumerism and capitalism.

    00

  • #
    Henry chance

    How are they coming on the dihdrogen monoxide ban? next up the stunt of the Sierra Club shills with their heads in the sand. Just 2 grams of silicon oxide in the blood can be fatal They need to remove silicopn oxides before it is too late also.

    00

  • #

    UPDATE: What did I say? Success at Cancun is already being used as an excuse here in Australia

    THE Gillard government will use progress at the climate change summit in Mexico to step up political pressure for a price on carbon at home. ” [The Australian Monday]

    00

  • #
    Gator

    You Must Fear What I Fear

    Said the warmist priest to the common man,
    I will make you all believe
    Way up in the sky, little man,
    you are not to disagree
    A gas, trace gas, we must tax outright
    With a tax that soars like a kite
    With a tax that soars out of sight

    Said the UN to the working man,
    you must live a life austere
    Burning up the sky, hoi polloi,
    you’re destroying the celestial sphere,
    A fright, a scare, a terror we decree
    That will cede our lands to the seas
    Unless you pay us to go and plant trees
     
    Said the czar to the masses everywhere,
    you must do what I say
    Pay a carbon tax, tax on air!
    or we’ll cart you all away
    The scam of scams, a globalists’ delight
    That will bring us power and might 
    To control your life is our right.

    Said the comon man to the climate czar,
    do you know what I know
    In your AR4 climate czar,
    do you know what I know
    A fraud, a fraud thrust upon mankind
    We’ll expose the biggest myth ever told
    We’ll expose the largest scam ever sold

    00

  • #
    BernardP

    Despite all the evidence that AGW is not true, the whole Climate Summit Charade continues. They have recouped some of the losses from Copenhagen and we are going to see efforts at another ratchet click next year in South Africa. The monster has not been slayed by Climategate, and will not die until a substantial group of nations change their official position about AGW.

    As it is now, all countries are apparently behaving as if AGW is an undisputable truth.

    Wikileaks, we need some new ammunition!

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    I see nothing wrong with a voluntary carbon tax -it could be applied to the Federal income tax.

    Simply check a box and pay: “If you’re dumb enough to have been duped by all the deceit that has been spread around about ‘the climate,’ then by all means increase your taxes by the amount you feel you have contributed to ‘climate change.’ Following are some suggested guidelines for giving:”

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    “Do you suppose the chances of the climate gravy train getting more money in the next few years have not just ramped up a notch? CEO’s of companies will note the words “$100 billion” and they’ll be asking a staff member to start writing down how they can get some of that action… plans will shift the company closer to the gravy train several years before the gravy itself starts to flow.”

    Case in point – this report

    ‘The Energy Efficiency: Accelerating the Agenda’ – Report pdf

    See article

    “COP16 to cut US$ 26 trillion energy costs by 2030?”

    By WBRi IBNS Newswire on 07 December 2010

    The World Economic Forum have booked tickets on the gravy train with Accenture (Andersen Consulting, H/T Rere).

    My take FWIW duplicated from the previous post

    What struck me was the thrust – “Accelerating the Agenda”

    And that it was the World Economic Forum moving it.

    Obviously there are huge opportunities for fee leverage and position building for consultants when “the Agenda” is global scale and what better way to profit than “Accelerating” it. But it is the climate-economic connection that is salient and we will be seeing more and more of in future. There will be IPCC AR5 climate-economic coupled model submissions for example.

    The economic community has not so far been a player of note in the climate change game but all that has changed with this type of report. The economic modelers would love to get some of the action that the climate modelers have been getting for years and the potential for policy influence from climate-economic coupled model output will be magnified considerably – and so will the miss-allocated resources.

    I see this (and other similar developments) as economics muscling in on the climate change action via:-

    # Energy
    # National economies
    # Modelling
    # Any other way possible

    The scope is enormous and of course the UN will be accommodating.

    00

  • #
    Ross

    From what I’ve read and heard it is the politicians ( included in this group are the heads of GreenPeace and WWF etc),consultants and the MSM environment reporters/lackies that see positives coming out of Cancun. The Greens /activists do not seem to be that happy at all.

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    New Zealand needed some changes in forestry at COP16 but I’m having difficulty working out what actually happened from the Cancun Agreements.

    They seem to assume a Kyoto Protocol extension.

    3. Requests the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol to consider, in time for possible inclusion in the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, if appropriate, whether a cap should be applied to emissions and removals from forest management and how extraordinary occurrences (so called “force majeure”) whose severity is beyond the control of, and not materially influenced by, a Party, can be addressed;

    I note NZ is the only Annex 1 party with a large positive Reference level of 17.05 Mt CO2eq/yr (AU -9.16), but I’ve yet to work out what that means except for this

    The forest management reference levels inscribed in the appendix were set transparently, taking into account:
    (a) Removals or emissions from forest management as shown in greenhouse gas inventories and relevant historical data;
    (b) Age-class structure;
    (c) Forest management activities already undertaken;
    (d) Projected forest management activities under a business as usual scenario;
    (e) Continuity with the treatment of forest management in the first commitment period;
    (f) The need to exclude removals from accounting in accordance with decision 16/CMP.1, paragraph 1.
    Points (c), (d) and (e) above were applied where relevant. The forest management reference levels also took into account the need for consistency with the inclusion of carbon pools. Reference levels including and excluding “force majeure” should be provided.

    Land use, land-use change and forestry

    Forestry is a massive bureaucratic undertaking in NZ to satisfy Kyoto requirements.

    I can’t see anything on REDD in the Agreements either.

    The PR and the Agreements don’t match when you look into them.

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    Yes I loved Baa Humbug’s comment as well but I’m not as optimistic as Richard C that the whole Kyoto debacle will fade into oblivion as once bribes are offered (or jungle bunny money as Richard North calls it) it’s very difficult for the ones who are paying the bribes to extricate themselves from the tentacles of the ones receiving them; I’m going to look at the documents over the next couple of days but first I’m going to write to Julia Gillard and Greg Combet expressing my displeasure at the $599 billion when Australia currently owes about $176 Billion (not including the NBN.)
    It’s all a bit depressing – surely a Government’s priority should be to its own citizens and we have homeless people sleeping on the streets and others unable to pay their power bills even when there is a wage coming into the household
    As to how it has come to this in the wake of the scientific oddities reflected in the Climategate e mails and the criticisms directed at the IPCC in the 12 months since – I like this article at http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/9986/
    (quoting from the last 2 paras)
    The entire UNFCCC process is not unlike 24-hour live rolling coverage of a natural disaster. The same scenarios are endlessly repeated while news anchors and pundits speculate wildly about the significance of the latest images drip-fed into lifeless depictions of carnage. There is no story… but there might be one, at any moment… Stay tuned.

    Science and policymaking are imitating the news. Rather than waiting for genuine scientific development, scientific organisations engaged in the policymaking process produce summaries of the latest speculation on demand. This speculation is intended to add urgency to the process by defeating the doubt that besets the policymaking. But it does so at the expense of a sober understanding of the climate and our relationship to it. This is acceptable under the rubric of the precautionary principle, which allows policymakers to aim to be safe rather than sorry by accepting approximations of ‘science’ in lieu of certainty. But this reveals that science – as an institution, rather than a process – is much less involved in discovery than in supplying climate politics and its bureaucracies with legitimacy.”

    Does that mean that science is providing the huff or puff – you be the judge

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    sorry that should be $599 million in my previous comment – I’m talking about Aust’s commitment to the Fast Start Financing

    00

  • #
    Ross

    Richard — the fact you cannot find anything should tell us something. That is , there is alot of BS going around.
    Try finding the answer to this question –NZ has a very large part of its emissions coming from various land use activities. To satisfy the Kyoto data reporting systems the Min. of Environment set the LUCAS system in the early/mid 2000′s. If this data was not available then how can we compare today’s emissions against 1900 levels (ie. the benchmark date) ?
    I’m sure Australia would have a similar issue on data comparisons.

    00

  • #
    Binny

    Politics 101, the less you intend to do about something the more you talk about it, and the stronger the hype and rhetoric.

    The political process works something like this.
    The media identifies a real or imagined problem and makes an issue about it.(Selling papers in the process)

    Politicians allocate taxpayers money to be spent on the ‘problem’(Politicians cannot actually fix anything they can only allocate where taxpayers money is spent)

    Public servants take the taxpayers money allocated to them by politicians and spend it.
    (Public servants had no mandate to fix any thing, their mandate is to spend the budget given to them by the politicians. If they don’t spend their full budget, the money is taken back and they get less money next year)

    The media becomes bored with the old ‘problem’ and identifies a new ‘problem’ the old problem fades away and the cycle begins again.(The old problem is no longer selling as many papers)

    Sadly the longer anyone spends in politics, even at the local level. The more conditioned they become to this process, and the staggering amount of sheer waste involved in any form of government.
    Consequently they slowly lose the desire to try and doing about it.
    It’s either that, quit politics, or lose your sanity.

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    SEPP has a great rundown on Cancun at WUWT today http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/12/weekly-climate-and-energy-news-roundup-8/#more-29319
    (love this bit)
    No doubt weighty announcements will be made at the close of the conference. However, they will be largely of two types. One category will be the pressing need for more carbon burning conferences to save the planet. The second category will be the need to intensify the Copenhagen accord that promises to deliver massive amounts of money from the West to developing countries. Those who hope to profit from this handover will insist upon it.

    As Fred Singer has put it, this would be a transfer of wealth from the poor in rich countries to the rich in poor countries.

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    I wonder how the Maiden Aunt & the Black Duck will be able to carbon tax the firewood bartered for free range eggs?

    Now where did I leave my club & skin-scraper?

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Richard, there’s no mystery to it at all.

    If you can claim that your ancestors heralded from NZ before Europeans arrived, you have the right to cut down any forest you like.

    If on the other hand you aren’t and you have electricity in your home or an auto, then you owe them for that from the pollution that goes with it.

    It’s that simple.

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Ross # 20

    Try finding the answer to this question –NZ has a very large part of its emissions coming from various land use activities. To satisfy the Kyoto data reporting systems the Min. of Environment set the LUCAS system in the early/mid 2000′s. If this data was not available then how can we compare today’s emissions against 1900 levels (ie. the benchmark date) ?

    Exactly.

    I made a similar observation re LUCAS at CCG

    Also, no mention of the relative significance of these recent land use changes compared to land use change since European colonization and effects on say, precipitation or CO2 levels.

    i.e. NZ has changed from afforestation to deforestation in European times so the minimal recent forest cover change is relatively inconsequential.

    Or, how may tonnes of carbon were released by NZ deforestation prior to say 1960 compared to the carbon emissions subsequent to 1960?

    Anyone seen a study?

    http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/open-threads/politics/ets-and-carbon-taxes-001/#comment-30636

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Brian # 24

    If you can claim that your ancestors heralded from NZ before Europeans arrived, you have the right to cut down any forest you like.

    It’s that simple.

    Not that simple – it gets complicated. NZ history has it that Maori arrived from Hawaii and that Kupe was the first. But there was a race of people already in residence (Moriori – Google it) that the Maori forced out with only a remnant surviving in the Chatham Islands (touchy subject).

    So who then has the right to “cut down any forest”?

    Please refer to this post NIWA generating warmth

    You will see there how NIWA’s NZTR shows that when Kupe arrived from HawaiI in 925AD it was -10.75C below the 1975 norm.

    Bruce of Newcastle made this contibution:-

    No, no, you have it entirely wrong. The Maori walked to NZ across the ice, they only built sea going vessels after it melted.

    If you don’t believe me, know it that tropical north Queensland was under the ice only about 1200 years ago. GISS tells us so:

    http://kenskingdom.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/tekowaiadjtplot2.jpg

    My reply (edited a little):-

    I have severe doubts that “The Maori walked to NZ across the ice, they only built sea going vessels after it melted.”

    I’m inclined to subscribe to the more plausible notion that they traveled by ice waka (ice > tio in Maori).

    These were the early forerunners of ice yachts.

    http://www.google.co.nz/images?hl=en&safe=off&biw=1024&bih=611&tbs=isch%3A1&sa=1&q=ice+yachts&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

    I suspect that the Australian Aborigine were in fact Hawaiians blown off course in their ice waka on the way to Aotearoa (The land of the long white cloud).

    So it turns out by your reasoning that Morioi have the right to cut down New Zealand forest and Hawaiians the right to cut down Australian forest.

    00

  • #
    pat

    wish someone with html know-how would put up a petition web page for aussies to sign and send to the main political parties demanding certainty that THERE WILL BE NO PRICE PUT ON CARBON DIOXIDE. the public needs to be heard on this subject.

    00

  • #
  • #

    Baa – you’re right – it irks me greatly that my hard earned dollars are going to be pissed away on ever expanding the government for no benefit to anything.

    You know, if the world got together and said stuff like:

    ‘we need to stop cutting down all the trees as that’s bad for general bio-diversity and have to work out how to improve the efficiency of farming to support a rapidly expanding gloobal population, plus everyone needs fresh water and there’s several genocides still happening in parts of Africa and we’re gonna need money to fix all this’

    I could see all that as useful, valuable, hugely worthwhile and I’d be ok with paying for that – but a frickin’ ‘carbon’ tax that totally guarantees that none of that other stuff will happen (no more money left to pay for that, sorry), makes me really mad.

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    Pat @ 27 that’s a great suggestion and I’ve put it to the AEF; if you’d like to know more about the AEF check out their website http://aefweb.info/about.php

    Here’s a copy of my e mail just in case you’re interested:

    The writer is a climate realist and a frequenter at Jo Nova’s blog where discussion is currently taking place on what has and has not been achieved at Cancun

    A commentator has made a comment which I thought you might be interested in assisting to achieve. Here’s the comment in bold and italics below:

    There is a new comment on the post “Cancun in a nutshell: nothing achieved but it’s a Big PR Success”.
    http://joannenova.com.au/2010/12/cancun-in-a-nutshell-nothing-achieved-but-its-a-big-pr-success/

    Author: pat
    Comment:
    wish someone with html know-how would put up a petition web page for aussies to sign and send to the main political parties demanding certainty that THERE WILL BE NO PRICE PUT ON CARBON DIOXIDE. the public needs to be heard on this subject.

    It seems to me that this is a very sensible suggestion and is consistent with the aims of your organisation. It seems to the writer madness that Mr Combet has spent $599 million at Cancun and the Govt is now proposing to introduce a carbon tax and no doubt increase the spend on renewable energy when some Australians are homeless and sleeping on the streets and in cars and others have or certainly will have in the future trouble paying their energy bills (as to the latter see http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/fuel-poverty-energy-electricity-government-power-pd20101022-AG6VV?OpenDocument&src=mp where the author says

    Australians may grouse about their electricity bills, especially now that they are on the rise, but for most of the nine million residential account holders the irritation soon passes and the air-conditioners and other appliances keep whirring. For a relative few, however, the arrival of the quarterly bill presents a real budget problem – and a new study indicates that their numbers will surge over the next few years.

    A paper by Paul Simshauser, Tim Nelson and Thao Doan suggests that the number of people living in “fuel poverty” in New South Wales and Queensland alone will exceed the population of Canberra by 2015.)

    And don’t get me started on the credibility of the ‘science’ behind the AGW political push.

    Would you be interesting in helping to set up this proposed petition.

    Well that’s the e mail and I’ve sent one as well to the ACSC – I’ll let you know what response I get; don’t be disappointed if either can’t manage it because of other priorities

    Alternatively Jo might be able to assist

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    I see Bjorn Lomborg is clutching at weird straws (or is that strawmen) now… in The Australian:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/cancum-ignores-the-energy-efficiency-paradox/story-e6frgd0x-1225969778699

    He seems to think that energy efficiency is a massive driver of energy demand… my comments below (dang missed the typo):

    “It would be interesting to see a more in depth analysis. The statements made here talk of correlation but not causation. The mere fact that our work-saving devices have become more energy efficient is not a demand driver.

    More to the point, we have ever more energy consuming devices per household. Mr. lomborg, are you suggesting that demand for plasma/LED/LCD TVs and split system aircons is because the energy consumption of washing machines and fridges has dropped? I would say not so much. It might be a small contributing factor, but it is small.

    In a nutshell, people work to a budget constraint, not an energy constraint. Given that energy costs are still a relatively smallish proportion of most people’s budgets (not so much for pensioners and the like obviously), it’s ability to ingluence consumer preferences is limited to size of the individual’s budget and the proportional cost of the energy.

    The Short version:
    To put it another way… a drop is energy costs does not mean everyone runs out and buys an LED TV.”

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Meanwhile the US is dusting off (almost) 100-year old legislation to prosecute (persecute?) Assange:

    “According to some reports, Washington is seeking to prosecute Assange under the 1917 act, which was used unsuccessfully to try to gag the New York Times when it published the Pentagon Papers in the 1970s.”

    Source: http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/assange-lawyers-say-us-preparing-charges-20101213-18uib.html

    Pretty desperate stuff I would say. Given that this legislation was insufficient to bring down the NY Times over the Pentagon Papers in the 1970s, I doubt it will be sufficient to bring down Assange. I expect there will be plenty of prominent lawyers in the US jumping over each other to defend Assange and make a name for themselves.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    What is laughable about the developed world subsidising the under-developing world is to think that the UN resolutions at Cancun are meaningful. I have seen the same effect at local government level in Australia. Think of it this way:

    Australia has a bucket of money designated for overseas development (etc) support pre-Cancun. Let’s assume it it $3 billion per year for the sake of argument (I have no idea how much we send overseas to developing/under-developed countries).

    Post-Cancun we promise to send $600 million (or whatever it was) per year to under-developed nations. Where do you assume that money is coming from? From the original bucket of overseas cash, of course! Now we send $600 million per year through the UN, and the remaining $2.4 billion through other usual channels.

    The numbers are irrelevant, but the point is that there is only one bucket of cash for distribution. Do you seriously think we signed up to anything significant at Cancun? I would bet that we have not, and it is simply a bit of accounting window dressing.

    00

  • #
    wendy

    Yet another LUDCRIOUS idea from the IDIOT Queensland premier anna BLIER!!

    Queensland plans to get hydropower from PNG…….

    http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/breaking-news/queensland-plan-to-get-hydro-power-from-png/story-e6freonf-1225934900251

    00

  • #
    wendy

    Despite some comments to the contry above, the numner of Australians who struggle to pay their OUTRAGEOUS Electricity Bills (thanks to the GREEN COMMUNISTS) is growing at a staggering rate!!

    Queenslanders getting power cut off as power bills soar…….

    http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/sunday-mail/queenslanders-getting-power-cut-off-as-power-bills-soar/story-e6frep2f-1225965728078

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    So it turns out by your reasoning that Morioi have the right to cut down New Zealand forest and Hawaiians the right to cut down Australian forest.

    It doesn’t matter, with a name like Richard and a computer, you obviously owe them money.

    So pay up

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    thanks to the GREEN COMMUNISTS

    You aren’t naive enough to believe that Communists all withered away after the Soviet Union fell, are you, Wendy?

    Did you think they wouldn’t make good on their promise of forty years ago to “bury” they West?

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    The more I look at the “Cancun Agreements”, the more I think they are just pre-written documents (pre-Cancun) laying out presumptive UN administration details because there’s no list of signees that I can find.

    Where are the agreed positions signed by each national negotiator that gave rise to all the PR spin?

    For Australia http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/cop16/eng/inf01p01.pdf

    H.E. Mr. Gregory Combet
    Minister for Climate Change and
    Energy Efficiency

    Mr. Rodney Hilton
    Deputy Chief of Staff
    Office of the Minister for Climate
    Change and Energy Efficiency

    Ms. Kristin Tilley
    Adviser
    Office of the Minister for Climate
    Change and Energy Efficiency

    And many, many more

    For New Zealand http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/cop16/eng/inf01p02.pdf

    H.E. Mr. Nick Smith
    Minister for the
    Environment/Minister for Climate
    Change Issues
    Ministry for the Environment

    H.E. Mr. Tim Groser
    Minister Responsible for
    International Climate Change
    Negotiations

    H.E. Ms. Jo Tyndall
    Climate Change Ambassador
    Ministry of Foreign Affairs and
    Trade

    And many, many more.

    Do such documents exist and where are they?

    If none exist – nothing happened at COP16 Cancun.

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    Richard C it certainly says Decisions adopted by COP 16 and CMP 6 and the closing resolution
    I wouldn’t expect to see a copy of signed pages

    but I suppose you could ask Mr Smith

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Val 39

    I wouldn’t expect to see a copy of signed pages

    Remember Copenhagen – nothing happened there either but there was an Obama brokered “noted” document that was signed by the agreeing parties.

    I would expect to see lists of signees under the various negotiated positions (not prescribed UN trivia) on the strength of the “noted” reports or even just one document that “noted” the Cancun Agreements with a list of signatories. Remember, there was not unanimous agreement (notably Bolivia et al)

    but I suppose you could ask Mr Smith

    Yes, good idea. I suspect I will be referred to the “Cancun Agreements” but it’s worth asking.

    Meantime, I’m curious as what others think about this so thanks Val.

    00

  • #
  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    From The Australian

    Under yesterday’s UN deal, the 194 national delegations in Cancun agreed to establish a “Green Climate Fund” to help developing countries deal with climate change.

    Here’s the links:-

    Decisions adopted by COP 16 and CMP 6

    Specific document

    Outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention

    IV. Finance, technology and capacity-building
    A. Finance
    Fast-start finance
    95. Takes note of the collective commitment by developed countries to provide new and additional resources, including forestry and investments through international institutions, approaching USD 30 billion for the period 2010–2012,
    with a balanced allocation between adaptation and mitigation; funding for adaptation will be prioritized for the most vulnerable developing countries, such as the least developed countries, small island developing States and Africa;

    Long-term finance
    97. Decides that, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, scaled-up, new and additional, predictable and adequate funding shall be provided to developing country Parties, taking into account the urgent and immediate needs of developing countries that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change;
    98. Recognizes that developed country Parties commit, in the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation, to a goal of mobilizing jointly USD 100 billion per year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries;

    99. Agrees that, in accordance with paragraph 1(e) of the Bali Action Plan, funds provided to developing country Parties may come from a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources;
    100. Decides that a significant share of new multilateral funding for adaptation should flow through the Green Climate Fund;

    101. Takes note of the relevant reports on the financing needs and options for mobilization of resources to address the needs of developing country Parties with regard to climate change adaptation and mitigation, including the report of the High-level Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing;

    Green Climate Fund

    [Snip]

    103. Also decides that the Fund shall be governed by a board of 24 members comprising an equal number of members from developing and developed country Parties; representation from developing country Parties shall include representatives from relevant United Nations regional groupings and representatives from small island developing States and the least developed countries; each board member shall have an alternate member; alternate members are entitled to participate in the meetings of the board only through the principal member, without the right to vote, unless they are serving as the member; during the absence of the member from all or part of the meeting of the board, his or her alternate shall serve as the member;

    104. Further decides that the Green Climate Fund shall have a trustee; the trustee for the Green Climate Fund shall have the administrative competence to manage the financial assets of the Green Climate Fund, maintain appropriate financial records and prepare financial statements and other reports required by the Board of the Green Climate Fund, in accordance with internationally accepted fiduciary standards;

    [Snip]

    107. Invites the World Bank to serve as the interim trustee of the Green Climate Fund, subject to a review three years after operationalization of the fund;
    108. Decides that the operation of the fund shall be supported by an independent secretariat;
    109. Decides that the Green Climate Fund shall be designed by a Transitional Committee, in accordance with the terms of reference in annex III to this decision; the Transitional Committee shall have 40 members, with 15 members from developed country Parties and 25 members from developing country Parties, with:
    (a) Seven members from Africa;
    (b) Seven members from Asia;
    (c) Seven members from Group of Latin American and Caribbean States;
    (d) Two members from small island developing States;
    (e) Two members from least developed countries;
    110. Invites the Executive Secretary of the secretariat, in consultation with the President of the Conference of the Parties, to convene the initial meeting of the Transitional Committee, with members having the necessary experience and skills, notably in the area of finance and climate change; the transitional committee meetings will be open to observers;
    111. Requests the secretariat, in consultation with President of the Conference of the Parties, to make arrangements enabling relevant United Nations agencies, international financial institutions, and multilateral development banks, along with the secretariat and the Global Environment Facility, to second staff to support the work of the Transitional Committee for the design phase of the Green Climate Fund;

    Fine.

    Now where’s the 194 signatories to provide the mandate to pursue “a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources”?

    [Note - that would include airline levies, financial transaction fees etc]

    Or, is this $100bn per year fund a verbal agreement under contract law?

    [Get real - a $100bn per year verbal agreement to a written contract]

    Or, is there no obligation yet for any country and no mandate for implementation until signing at Durban?

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    My request to the NZ Office of Climate Change
    ——————————————————————————————————————–
    UN mandate to establish a “Green Climate Fund”

    To the Minister of Climate Change Dr Smith or representative,

    I am trying to access the formal contract by which the 194 nations (as per news reports) agreed to give the UN the mandate to establish a $100bn per year by 2020 “Green Climate Fund”.

    The details of the fund are found in the UN document:-

    “Outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention”

    http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/cop_16/application/pdf/cop16_lca.pdf

    There are no signatories listed in the Advance unedited version Draft decision [-/CP.16]

    Please provide, if it exists:-

    1) A link to the document other than the above that was signed by the representatives of the 194 nations that agreed to provide the mandate to the UN to pursue “a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources” to establish a “Green Climate Fund”.

    2) A list of countries that disagreed or abstained from agreeing to the establishment of a “Green Climate Fund” by the UN..

    Or,

    Is the agreement by the 194 nations to establish a “Green Climate Fund”. a verbal agreement to the written document above?

    Or,

    Is there no obligation yet for any country and no mandate for UN implementation of the “Green Climate Fund” until signing of an agreement at COP17 Durban?

    Sincerely,

    Richard Cumming

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Is there any mention of the funding being in real dollars or nominal dollars? If one assumes a discount rate of 10%, for example, US$100 billion in ten years is only worth US$38.55 billion in today’s terms. Therefore the distinction between nominal and real dolars is very important.

    Of course, given the rate Obama is printing money it is entirely possible that US$100 billion in ten years time will be worth nothing …

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Bulldust

    How it works (if implemented) is that funding is ramped up from the $10bn per year Fast Start fund pledged at Copenhagen for the first 3 years to $100bn per year Green Climate Fund from 2020 onwards.

    None of the first $10bn tranche of the first 3 years $30bn Fast Start fund has been released by the donor nations a year on from Copenhagen to my knowledge.

    So to determine the Present Value of funding you will have to apply annual discount factors to the progressively rising total 10 – 100 from 2011 – 2020 and then to 100 annually thereafter.

    Obviously that is a shipload more than US$38.55bn.

    Also the Fast Start funding is by national donors but the Green Climate Fund is from whatever nefarious source they can filch it from including financial transactions, airline levies, insurance etc.

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    Richard how I read it:
    95. Takes note of the collective commitment by developed countries to provide new and additional resources, including forestry and investments through international institutions, approaching USD 30 billion for the period 2010–2012, with a balanced allocation between adaptation and mitigation; funding for adaptation will be prioritized for the most vulnerable developing countries, such as the least developed countries, small island developing States and Africa;
    Long-term finance
    Long term finance
    97. Decides that, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, scaled-up, new and additional, predictable and adequate funding shall be provided to developing country Parties, taking into account the urgent and immediate needs of developing countries that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change;
    98. Recognizes that developed country Parties commit, in the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation, to a goal of mobilizing jointly USD 100 billion per year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries;

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Val

    Yes, Fast Start Fund then scaled (ramped) Green Climate Fund

    See # 45

    Note though that they are entirely different beasts and that the first tranche of Fast Start has not been released yet.

    See # 48

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    Richard I accept that but doesn’t changes pledges under 95, by the way I suspect pledges by country re the fast tract finance are a verbal commitment; Australia’s commitment is widely touted as being $599 Billion; do you have any info for NZ

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    SORRY, THAT SHOULD BE $599 MILLION, second time today I’ve made that mistake

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Val 51

    COP15 Fast Start pledges US$

    Australia __________500m
    EU _______________10bn
    Japan ____________15bn
    NZ _______________0
    Norway ___________357m
    Switzerland ________130m
    US _______________4.8bn
    Total ____________31.2bn (from source above)

    Also

    UK _______________£1.5bn Source (probably part of EU figure – dunno for sure)

    See # 91 this thread for links

    http://joannenova.com.au/2010/12/waiting-for-news-of-cancun-100-billion-at-stake-by-2020/

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Note also that Fast Start from Copenhagen (now under 95 at Cancun) $30bn that was to be spread over 2010, 2011, 2012 will now be spread only over 2011 and 2012,

    That’s if any is actually disbursed. AU pledged $500m at Copenhagen, didn’t release any of it, then added another $99m to look good for Cancun.

    I can’t see much of Fast Start being disbursed but it’s the Green Climate Fund that scares me.

    00

  • #
    Ferdinand

    We all know, and have known for some time, that AGW is not about global warming or even about science: it’s about money. The majority of politicians are interested only in teir continued employment ( beyond the next election) and they will go along with any policy that apperas to ensure that. When the time comes – and it’s not too far away – that AGW is finally seen to be a fraud, they will leave the sinking ship as fast as they can and swing firmly behind the phrase “Well I always had my doubts”.

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    No long diatribe from me today – I have been a tad busy with all this.

    But folks, I have to say that Richard C (kia ora bro) is exactly on the money.

    I am having a lot of trouble in finding out which country committed to what. There is lots of talk of statements, and speeches, and “general consensus”, but precious few material facts. And if it ain’t written down, it ain’t been said – or worse still, can be modified later.

    But Richard’s idea of writing to the responsible Ministers, local members of parliament, CEO’s of Government Ministries and Departments, and putting in dozens, nay hundreds of Information Requests for details about the documents that were signed at Cancun, will force people out of their current “done and dusted” attitude.

    We can also try asking for the documentation from the working sessions at the UN where our representatives were present. And if they have thrown it away, then we can ask why, given that they may be required as evidence at some point in the future.

    Whether this gets us anywhere or not, will have to be seen, but it does send a very clear message to the political claque that they no longer have the ability to hide behind the “science” and the mystique of conferences in exotic places.

    Just a thought.

    00

  • #
    Carolina

    Hi everybody here,
    I definitely begin to feel like somehow teleported to the middle ages! I mean the people then have understood the “climate” better than today. How long the media on behalf of governments can speak obvious lies?
    It all makes me feel sick and doubting my sanity (in crazy moments). I need your opinion and help to believe I am not crazy.
    Thanks

    00

  • #
    Paul79

    A declared ‘PR’ success at Cancun does not auger well for the future. Lord Monckton warned of the ever tightening chain of UN control by unelected bureaucrats, and as each of these conferences takes the process another step. Government will soon have their hand deep in our pockets to meet the UN demands.
    This and other such blogs are re-enforcing ‘our’ views within our circle of contacts, but have little effect on the wider social networks on the web. Those with the appropriate skills should be penetrating the AGW networks, questioning and pointing out the shortcomings, flaws and deceits of the CRU gang and associates. It may be a slow process, but the skilled use the web may bear much fruit.

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Paul79: # 57

    Some of us already do that, a few are successful for a while, most of us just get banned. You see, this Grand Scam Tournament relies on consensus, but informed debate and questioning is anathema to consensus. We seekers after truth are pariahs in the lands of the believers.

    Jo allows them to come to us – we unkindly call them Trolls – and make fun of them, but it is good natured and occasionally one of them goes away with a slightly modified opinion.

    But blogs are not water-tight, and ideas leak out. This and other sites get cited more and more frequently, and word starts to get around.

    And the fiascos that now epitomise these conferences are good theatre. The general public are tending to make references to the UN not being able to manage an over-imbibement in a Brewery.

    The world is slowly dividing into three groups: The AGW Believers, the Sceptics, and a new group – the Cynics. At the end of all this, it is the Cynics who will carry the day, as they always have done, in initiating the collapse of a non-elected power structure.

    00

  • #
    Mervyn Sullivan

    Despite so much scientific literature debunking the IPCC’s pseudo science, the IPCC’s man-made global warming juggernaut just keeps rolling along.

    So how can the IPCC’s man-made global warming juggernaut be stopped?

    The majority of politicians around the world are too dumb to understand how they have been conned by the IPCC. So we can’t rely on them. Even Tony Abbott has accepted the great big lie, be it in a most diluted form.

    The skeptics who point out the real science debunking the IPCC’s mantra are not getting the coverage in the main stream media. So… there is really only one way to effectively stop this man-made global warming juggernaut and that is by legal action – to put to the test the IPCC’s computer model climate science against the real world science and observational climate data.

    We have already seen what happens when the IPCC type mantra is tested in Court… twice, in fact:

    1. Errors in “An Inconvenient Truth” were exposed in the British High Court preventing it being shown in British schools unless a disclaimer was first issued to the school pupils that it was a political film, not a scientific film and it contained errors.

    2. The surface temperature record of New Zealand was exposed in a New Zealand court… Kiwigate demonstrated that when challenged in a Court, the “official temperature data” does not stand up to scrutiny, and data can’t seem to be produced in support of the “official mantra”.

    So… let us be very serious here. How can we make it actually happen? For example:

    1. What will it take to get the IPCC into a Court of Law?

    2. What legal jurisdiction applies?

    3. What key IPCC points should be challenged (e.g. flawed greenhouse gas theory; unreliable surface temperature record, flawed climate models; etc)?

    4. How can a legal challenge be orchestrated (e.g. having a high profile facilitator required to organize and coordinate such action)?

    5. How can a legal challenge be funded (e.g. global donations fund)?

    Think about it … we all know the IPCC’s pseudo science is flawed. If tested in a Court of Law, wouldn’t the IPCC be readily exposed, and its mantra declared false, unreliable and misleading, if not fraudulent?

    In my opinion, a Court challenge is the only mechanism that will ever halt the IPCC dead in its tracks.

    So come on, everyone … let us somehow get this idea rolling, if we are dead serious about slaying the IPCC dragon once and for all.

    Ideas please?

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    I don’t know what it would take, Mervyn, but I don’t think the group could be sued or prosecuted by any authority outside of the UN internal investigation and enforcement bureau itself. Any systematic wrongdoing on the part of the IPCC could not be prosecuted by any single government (although individual crimes could certainly be investigated by the government of the panel member’s citizenship).

    I looked into the criteria the UN Office of Internal Oversight would need to proceed with an investigation of a UN panel, willful deception with the goal of material gain would have to be demonstrated, I don’t think any realistic evidence of such a thing could be produced.

    Few UN Panels are ever disbanded for demonstrated wrongdoing, what usually happens in their disappearance is that either their charter is provided a time line for the panel’s existence, or else governments don’t appoint panel members and they simply disappear.

    I was personally familiar with the formation of the IPCC back in 1988, it was clear to me that the panel had a pre-determined agenda right at the outset, there wasn’t a damned thing I could do about it, the UN remains an intergovernmental disgrace, and I am as angry about the whole affair as you are

    00

  • #
    gbrecke

    RE: the following figures..

    “The UN wants nothing less than 1.5% of our GDP.

    That’s $212 billion from the USA every year ($2700 per family of 4).

    That’s $32 billion from the UK every year ($2000 per family of 4).

    That’s $13 billion from Australia every year ($2400 per family of 4)”.

    Since we’ll be borrowing the money to pay the UN, won’t we be paying compound interest on this amount each year as well?

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    gbrecke: #62

    I don’t think the 1.5% GDP levy was part of the Cancun Agreements.

    There’s nothing in them that I’ve seen so far and I haven’t heard or seen anything in news reports.

    But someone is probably typing “1.5% GDP levy” into the COP17 “Durban Agreements” right now.

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    From NZ Herald

    Behind closed doors, haggling over proposed decisions, delegates duelled over what developing nations considered an inadequate goal – the US$100 billion a year by 2020.

    The developing south views such finance not as aid but as compensation for the looming damage from two centuries of northern industrial emissions, and propose that the richer countries commit 1.5 per cent of their annual gross domestic product – today roughly US$600 billion a year.

    Northern delegations resisted such ambitious targets.

    The 1.5% may be a developing country demand – not a UN proposal.

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    today roughly US$600 billion a year.

    Why such stinking stupid garbage is even recorded by the newspapers is crime in itself

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    My but Judith Curry is loquacious!

    I hate to break the news to you, Judith but the SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES will disappear forever in January. So I think you’ve wasted your effort. The voters put in some sharper thinkers.

    Thanks Joe @8 for pointing this out.

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    If UN Green Dreams came true

    2011 $10.00bn Fast Start COP15
    2012 $10.00bn Fast Start COP15
    2013 $11.25bn Green Climate Fund COP16
    2014 $32.50bn ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ”
    2015 $43.75bn
    2016 $55.00bn
    2017 $66.25bn
    2018 $77.50bn
    2019 $88.75bn
    2020 $100bn
    2021 $100bn
    ” ” ” ” ” ”

    Disbursed PER YEAR

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    The Copenhagen document prescribes that at least 0.7% of designated developed countries’ GDP should be allocated to the “Convention Adaptation Fund”; see section 41 here:

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/un-fccc-copenhagen-2009.pdf

    A legal challenge should be based on whatever nation’s official temperature record compiler is; in Australia that is BoM and/or CSIRO; the NIWA case is a template for simplicity but from which all sorts of consequent litigation could flow; but the approach should be, knock out the temperature record; that is the chief domino.

    00

  • #
  • #
    Ross

    Mervyn @ 60. This will not get the result you want but it will be a major “shot across their bows” . Doug Keenan is pushing his allegation of fraud by Prof Jones (UEA) with the House of Commons select committee. Up until now everyone has just ignored his allegation (ie. they not even tried to refute it). But this time I think they are going to have to face up to it.

    http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2010/12/9/keenan-calling-scitech-committee.html

    00

  • #
    wendy

    THE QUESTIONS AUSTRALIAN SENATORS ASKED PENNY WONG WHICH SHE REFUSED TO ANSWER

    A question asked many times of her in the Senate but she REFUSES to answer:

    Question 1

    AUSTRALIA EMITS 1.5% OF Global Co2

    If Australia reduced Carbon emissions, by how much will she reduce them, and how much will that reduce GLOBAL
    Carbon emissions?

    And how much will it reduce GLOBAL temperatures?

    Question 2

    The Emission Tax Scheme expects that the industrialized countries should share their wealth to the 3rd world poorer countries.

    However, these ‘poor’ countries, eg, Africa and South America have huge reserves of diamonds, gold, copper, zinc, oil, coal, iron ore etc.

    Why are they poor?

    Why won’t she give us the figures?

    RESPONSE FROM LORD MONCKTON…………

    Since Ms. Wong is too embarrassed to answer the first of your excellent questions, here is the scientific answer:

    What difference would Australia, which contributes just 1.5% to global CO2 emissions, make to global temperatures by 2020, the Copenhagen reference date, if she The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
    were to cut emissions stepwise to achieve a reduction of 30% by 2020 in line with the Copenhagen agreement?

    A stepwise emissions cut of 30% by Australia would in fact only reduce her emissions by an average of 15% over the coming decade, reducing world emissions by 1.5% of 15% over the Copenhagen reference period. We shall assume, reasonably, that the 30-year measured link between emissions and concentration remains constant at 15 Gigatons CO2 emitted per part per million by volume of CO2 concentration. We shall also assume, generously, that over the decade Australia will reduce her contribution to total anthropogenic emissions from 1750-2020 by 15%. Since CO2 concentration has been rising in a straight line at 2 ppmv/year for the past decade, and is now at 390 ppmv, by 2020 it will by (390+20) = 410 ppmv, up by 130 ppmv compared with the 280 ppmv in 1750. Australia’s 1.5% contribution to this 130 ppmv was at most 2 ppmv, of which 15% is 0.3 ppmv. Therefore, using the Monckton Equation to calculate the extreme high-end estimate of the amount of “global warming” that Australia’s compliance rather than non-compliance with the Copenhagan agreement would achieve, the warming forestalled would be (at maximum) 6.5 times the natural logarithm of the proportionate increase in CO2 concentration from 409.7 ppmv (if only Australia complies with Copenhagen) to 410 ppmv (if Australia does not comply).

    Thus, delta-T(max) = 6.5 ln(410/409.7) < 0.005 C, or less than one two-hundredth of a Celsius degree. But the cost of achieving this reduction would be absurdly disproportionate to the climate "benefit" achieved. – Monckton of Brenchley

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    C. Means of implementation

    41. [Providing financial support shall be additional to developed countries’ ODA targets.] [Mandatory contributions from developed country Parties and other developed Parties included in Annex II should form the core revenue stream for meeting the cost of adaptation in conjunction with additional sources including share of proceeds from flexible mechanisms.] [This finance should come from the payment of the adaptation debt by developed country Parties and be based principally on public-sector funding, while other alternative sources could be considered.] [[Sources of new and additional financial support for adaptation] [Financial resources of the “Convention Adaptation Fund”] [may] [shall] include:

    (a) [Assessed contributions [of at least 0.7% of the annual GDP of developed country Parties] [from developed country Parties and other developed Parties included in Annex II to the Convention] [taking into account historical contribution to concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere];]

    (b) [Auctioning of assigned amounts and/or emission allowances [from developed country Parties];]

    (c) [Levies on CO2 emissions [from Annex-I Parties [in a position to do so]];]

    (d) [Taxes on carbon-intensive products and services from Annex I Parties;]

    (e) [[Levies on] [Shares of proceeds from measures to limit or reduce emissions from] international [aviation] and maritime transport;]

    (f) Shares of proceeds on the clean development mechanism (CDM), [extension of shares of proceeds to] joint implementation and emissions trading;

    (g) [Levies on international transactions [among Annex I Parties];]

    (h) [Fines for non-compliance [of Annex I Parties and] with commitments of Annex I Parties and Parties with commitments inscribed in Annex B to the Kyoto Protocol (Annex B Parties);]

    (i) [[Additional ODA] [ODA additional to ODA targets] provided through bilateral, regional and other multilateral channels (in accordance with Article 11.5 of the Convention).]]

    ——————————————————————————————————————–
    We really have to get confirmation from our respective countries that the negotiators actually agreed (and signed an agreement) to this.

    See # 46

    My request to the NZ Office of Climate Change

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Re # 72

    Means of implementation

    Was from:-

    AD HOC WORKING GROUP ON LONG-TERM COOPERATIVE ACTION
    UNDER THE CONVENTION
    Seventh session
    Bangkok, 28 September to 9 October 2009, and Barcelona, 2–6 November 2009

    Not COP16 Cancun Agreements

    The COP16 “Green Climate Fund” enacts the implementation

    41. [Providing financial support shall be additional to developed countries’ ODA targets.]

    From the 2009 proposal

    00

  • #

    cohenite: #68
    December 14th, 2010 at 6:30 am

    The Copenhagen document prescribes that at least 0.7% of designated developed countries’ GDP should be allocated to the “Convention Adaptation Fund”; see section 41 here:

    That ambit claim is nothing new under the sun Cohenite, I wouldn’t worry about it, it’ll never happen,

    Andrew Bolt
    Thursday, November 05, 2009 at 06:21pm

    The same old dream.

    In 1970, the United Nations called on rich countries such as Australia to give 0.7 per cent of their wealth to the Third World – minus handling fees for the UN, of course. This was necessary to ensure “human dignity”:

    (43) In recognition of the special importance of the role which can be fulfilled only by official development assistance, a major part of financial resource transfers to the developing countries should be provided in the form of official development assistance. Each economically advanced country will progressively increase its official development assistance to the developing countries and will exert its best efforts to reach a minimum net amount of 0.7 per cent of its gross national product at market prices by the middle of the Decade.

    No go? Then let’s try again, this time wrapped in green.

    In 2002, the United Nations called on rich countries such as Australia to give 0.7 per cent of their wealth to the Third World – minus handling fees for the UN, of course. This was necessary for “development” and to “conserve, protect and restore the health and integrity of the Earth’s ecosystem”:

    Make available the increased commitments in official development assistance announced by several developed countries at the International Conference on Financing for Development. Urge the developed countries that have not done so to make concrete efforts towards the target of 0.7 per cent of gross national product as official development assistance to developing countries.

    Damn. Try yet again.

    In 2004, the United Nations called on rich countries such as Australia to give 0.7 per cent of their wealth to the Third World – minus handling fees for the UN, of course. This was necessary to ensure “peace”, “collective security” and a “more secure world”:

    The many donor countries which currently fall short of the United Nations 0.7 per cent of gross national product (GNP) for official development assistance (ODA) should establish a timetable for reaching it.

    Still not? Hmm.

    In 2005, the United Nations called on rich countries such as Australia to give 0.7 per cent of their wealth to the Third World – minus handling fees for the UN, of course. This was necessary to ensure “millennium development goals” and fight poverty:

    Ours is the first generation in which the world can halve extreme poverty within the 0.7 envelope. In 1975, when the donor world economy was around half its current size, the Goals would have required much more than 1 percent of GNP from the donors. Today, after two and a half decades of sustained economic growth, the Goals are utterly affordable.

    Still not! OK, let’s go for broke at Copenhagen next month.

    In 2009, the United Nations in a draft treaty calls on rich countries such as Australia to give 0.7 per cent of their wealth to the Third World – minus handling fees for the UN, of course. This is necessary to ensure “serious adverse effects of climate change as well as threats to their future economic potential due to insufficient access to shared global atmospheric resources”:

    [Financial resources of the “Convention Adaptation Fund"] [may] [shall] include:

    (a) [Assessed contributions [of at least 0.7% of the annual GDP of developed country Parties] [from developed country Parties and other developed Parties included in
    Annex II to the Convention] [taking into account historical contribution to concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere];]

    The excuses change, and global warming is the most recent. But the hunger for 0.7 per cent of your cash is a constant.

    See?

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    At the great Save-the-World conference long ago in the year 2010 in Cancun, many of the delegates reached the end and realized they hadn’t gotten so much as a huff or a puff from the Big Bad Wolf, much less had they slain him. So, fearing failure they said, “Let’s agree on something, anything, so we can go home and tell Little Red Riding Hood we at least struggled with the wolf and she’ll be none the wiser. Then let’s beat it out of here because it’s just no fun anymore. We miss our mothers and our nice toys.” Now everyone thought that was a great idea and so, boys and girls, that’s exactly what they did. But guess what? Little Red Riding Hood didn’t believe them and told of their failure far and wide, embarrassing them no end and causing their mothers to send them to bed without any dinner.

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Baa 74

    I wouldn’t worry about it, it’ll never happen,

    Disagree

    This time it’s been enacted at COP16 “Cancun Agreements” “Green Climate Fund”.

    It’s happening.

    Question is: where is the list of document signatories?

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    I trust Judith Curry about as far as I can throw Al Gore.

    “Runs with hares, hunts with hounds …”

    - she provided one of her “runs with hares” columns to Anthony on his weblog, several commenter’s derided her for it.

    “Many of you have written you don’t trust me, …” she began in a teary-eyed response to them

    NO KIDDIN’, honey, you did to yourself many times over

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Note that “at least 0.7% of the annual GDP of developed country Parties” is just one of the possible sources of funding for the Green Climate Fund disbursements.

    # Public-sector funding

    # At least 0.7% of the annual GDP of developed country Parties

    # Auctioning of assigned amounts and/or emission allowances [from developed country Parties

    # Levies on CO2 emissions [from Annex-I Parties

    # Taxes on carbon-intensive products and services from Annex I Parties

    # Levies on] [Shares of proceeds from measures to limit or reduce emissions from] international [aviation] and maritime transport

    # Shares of proceeds on the clean development mechanism (CDM)

    # Levies on international transactions [among Annex I Parties

    # Fines for non-compliance [of Annex I Parties and] with commitments of Annex I Parties and Parties with commitments inscribed in Annex B to the Kyoto Protocol

    # Additional ODA] [ODA additional to ODA targets] provided through bilateral, regional and other multilateral channels

    Take a long hard look at the other “channels”

    They’ve been working on this for some time with Soros et al.

    It’s happening.

    00

  • #
  • #
    Tel

    The excuses change, and global warming is the most recent. But the hunger for 0.7 per cent of your cash is a constant.

    The hunger is for any and all of your cash, whatever they can get hands on. The 0.7% figure is just what they think they can ask for without sounding too big, but big enough to get taken seriously.

    00

  • #

    The hunger is for any and all of your cash, whatever they can get hands on.

    Yes exactly Tel. They’ve always had that hunger. But they’ve never achieved their goal.

    In the end, it’s the politicians who have to sign off on all this. And a politician knows that every dollar sent overseas is a vote lost somewhere at home.
    The Cancun proposals are not easy to achieve politically, especially in the current economic climate. The UK is learning this lesson the hard way as we speak.

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    FYI lurkers

    There’s an information repository at Climate Conversation Group

    “ADAPTION and MITIGATION LAW: INTERNATIONAL IMPOSITIONS and CONSEQUENCES”

    Under “Economics” here

    http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/open-threads/climate/economics/#comment-25984

    Haven’t updated it with the Green Climate Fund but that’s a to do.

    00

  • #
    wendy

    “Brian G Valentine” (77), my thoughts on this “Judith Curry”…..

    If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas!!

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Richard C (NZ):
    I used to teach managerial finance for a living :) My point is whether the future sums are expressed as nominal (dollars of that future year) amounts or as real (present day equivalent) amounts. One allows for inflation etc while the other does not. Big difference, as illustrated in my simple example.

    00

  • #
    Ross

    Baa Humbug and Tel. Monckton in his missives alluded to how he thinks theses UN guys are trying to follow the EU ways of achieving their objectives.He may or may not be right but the point with all these games is when it comes to crunch it has to be able to sold politically as you say Baa Humbug.
    A good example of this is happening right now in Europe with their financial mess as can be seen in this article

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/8197780/The-eurozone-is-in-bad-need-of-an-undertaker.html

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Bulldust

    My point is whether the future sums are expressed as nominal (dollars of that future year) amounts or as real (present day equivalent) amounts. One allows for inflation etc while the other does not. Big difference, as illustrated in my simple example.

    Yes I understand your point but they are not future sums.

    From # 67

    If UN Green Dreams came true

    2011 $10.00bn Fast Start COP15
    2012 $10.00bn Fast Start COP15
    2013 $11.25bn Green Climate Fund COP16
    2014 $32.50bn ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ”
    2015 $43.75bn
    2016 $55.00bn
    2017 $66.25bn
    2018 $77.50bn
    2019 $88.75bn
    2020 $100bn
    2021 $100bn
    ” ” ” ” ” ”

    Disbursed PER YEAR

    i.e. The Green Climate Fund is not a fund that accumulates but one which sucks the lifeblood out of the global economy EVERY YEAR from now on and disburses the proceeds immediately to “developing countries (Green in name – Re-distribution in game).

    I will concede that some funds (maybe most) will come from private donors (Gates, Turner, Buffet et al) so that’s their prerogative so no skin off us.

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Bulldust Re # 85

    Using a 5% discount rate 2011 – 2020

    Present value (PV) $367.28bn

    But at 2020 it’s just getting started.

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Possible financial sources for the Green Climate Fund

    From William F. Jasper, New American | 07 December 2010

    Panelists from the Climate Action Network on Wednesday revealed that nations are discussing new taxes either on international monetary transactions or preferably on international shipping and aviation.

    The U.N. does not currently have the authority to tax, but it is guiding negotiations to accept “monitoring, reporting and verification” from some taxing authority for money received from the new Green Fund. The new tax assessor-collector could possibly be the International Maritime Organization, which is a U.N. affiliate.

    Soros Green for the Green Lobby
    Enter George Soros, billionaire green activist and champion of global government.
    Soros was among the elite glamour contingent that swarmed into Copenhagen on private luxury jets last December and debarked from stretch limos at the climate conference to deliver harangues calling for the peoples of the developed countries to sacrifice, change their lifestyles, and decrease their consumption in order to save Mother Earth. Soros was appointed to the UN’s High Level Advisory Group on Climate Finance, which was tasked with coming up with the ways and means for reaching “the goal of mobilizing US$100 billion annually for climate actions in developing countries by 2020.”

    The Advisory Group issued its report on November 5, 2010, just a little more than three weeks before the start of the Cancun conference. Among the proposals put forward by group are taxes on aviation jet fuel, airline passenger tickets, and “bunker fuel,” the heavy diesel fuel used by maritime shippers. The report states:

    Revenues generated from taxes on international aviation and shipping: this would either involve some levy on maritime bunker/aviation jet fuels for international voyages or a separate emissions trading scheme for these activities, or a levy on passenger tickets of international flights;

    Revenues from carbon taxes: this is based on a tax on carbon emissions in developed countries raised on a per-ton-emitted basis;

    But in the current economic recession, and with a new U.S. Congress recently chastened by voters angry over huge deficits and wild spending, can the climate activists truly expect to win approval of any kind of carbon tax? Apparently so; it seems the tax on “bunker fuel” is one of the most popular proposals, perhaps because it affects the 90 percent of world trade that moves via maritime shipping and could raise hundreds of billions of dollars. However, consumers — who ultimately would pay the tax passed along by shippers — would be less likely to revolt against this kind of indirect tax spread invisibly over virtually everything they consume, as opposed to an income tax hike or an additional sales tax at the supermarket or gas pump.

    Continues……..

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Richard I think you were fixating on my example of a single sum… I was not presenting that as the Cancun agreement case, merely using a single sum to illustrate the nominal vs real values issue. I shall take it from your example that the sums in the Cancun agreement were nominal amounts.

    On a side note I see the Assange issue is causing friction within Labor:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/wikileaks/party-revolt-at-gillards-wiki-stance/story-fn775xjq-1225970522440

    I must confess some glee and have to wonder if Julia’s days are numbered. Perhaps a concerted effort from the mining companies over the MRRT betrayal and we shall see another election…

    00

  • #
    Fred Firth

    I will become a believer in climate change when the price of beach-front properties start to go backwards.

    00

  • #
    Fred Firth

    The money about to be stolen from all of us, supposedly for third-world green-aid, is to service the interest on their world-bank debt.
    Never mind, by 2020, we should become eligible for third world status ourselves.

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Fred

    by 2020,we should become eligible for third world status ourselves.

    Why wait? Come to NZ – NZ$11B budget blowout.

    Govt put GST up to 15% and now they’re wondering why spending was down.

    Might explain NZs US$000m Fast Start pledge – much better to be a beneficiary.

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Climate Distortions Were Achieved. National Weather Agencies Are The Trojan Horses

    By Dr. Tim Ball Monday, December 13, 2010

    Maurice Strong set up the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) through the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to provide a powerful vehicle for almost complete control of climate science. Each national weather office perpetuates the deception that human CO2 is causing climate change. He controlled the science through the IPCC and the political and propaganda portion under the umbrella of the Rio Conference (1992) and the ongoing Conference of the Parties (COP).

    By peopling the IPCC with representatives of national weather offices, he attained control of the politics within each nation and collective global control. They’re the Trojan Horses from which funding and research emanate to deceive the politicians and public into achieving his goal of destroying the industrialized nations.

    Continues………

    00

  • #
    Fred Firth

    Regarding Maurice Strong

    Didn’t Maurice Strong run away to China after he was caught pocketing a million dollar “gift” from Korea’s Tongsun Park? The money obtained through the United Nation’s Oil-for-Food program.

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    It’s not as if there’s nothing being done and no funding already
    ——————————————————————————————————————–
    New Zealand’s Fifth National Communication – Under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

    7 Financial resources and technology transfer

    7.1 Introduction

    New Zealand is committed to supporting developing country parties to meet the dual challenges of reducing emissions and adapting to the impacts of climate change. New Zealand is addressing these challenges by delivering new and additional financial resources through a range of channels, primarily to its partner countries in the Pacific, but also to countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America.

    Table 7.1: New Zealand’s financial contributions to the Global Environment Facility, 2005–2008

    Contributions1 (NZ$ million2) to the GEF Trust Fund

    2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, Total
    2.78, 3.42, 3.28, 3.12, 12.6

    Table 7.2: Financial contributions to multilateral institutions and programmes, 2005–2008

    Institution or programme Contributions1 (NZ$ million2)

    Multilateral institutions …….2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, Total

    1. World Bank ……………..9.21, 20.01, 11.03, 20.37, 60.62
    2. Asian Development Bank 12.83, 12.57, 12.16, 6.37, 43.93
    3. United Nations Development Pr.8.00, 8.00, 8.00, 8.00, 32.00
    4. United Nations Environment Pr.0.25, 0.21, 0.21, 0.35, 1.02
    5. UNFCCC Trust Fund for Partic 0.10 , 0.10, 0.10, 0.50, 0.80
    6. UNFCCC Least Developed Countr1.80, 1.80, 1.80, 1.40, 6.80
    7. UNFCCC Trust Fund for Supplem0.12 , 0.11, 0.06, –, 0.29
    8. Montreal Protocol ……..0.58, 0.53, 0.46, 0.55, 2.12
    Total …………………..32.89, 43.33, 33.82, 37.54, 147.58

    And so on – Kiribati, Tuvalu etc.

    00

  • #
    elsie

    The AGW side must surely be feeling very embarrassed, if they are capable of such emotion. They have lived off the great heatwave that hit France about 2003 killing many people. Also the bush fires in Victoria were blamed on AGW but really were a result of Green bylaws banning hazard reduction. Meantime each winter in both hemispheres keep recording lower and lower temperatures with record snowfalls. Even the summers have been milder over the past few years in QLD at least. The fact that Cancun had its coldest day on record during the conference is an echo of the freeze at Copenhagen where Obama had to leave early before Air Force 1 was stranded. Surely there has to be an admission that GW let alone AGW is a dud hypothesis. It would be funny if it was not so serious as to cost the average Joe or Jill huge amounts of money over a long time when hospitals, etc, need so much more attention.

    00

  • #
    wendy

    I recently sent Jo’s Article “Pitman: paid $190,000 a year to throw baseless insults” to Mr Pitman.

    Here is his reply…….

    “hi,

    I am seriously annoyed by this. Nova got my salary SO wrong. $190,000 ??? Really !

    A”

    As far as I am concerned Pitman sho be paid NOTHING for the DRIVEL and LIES that he pontificates!!

    What an Arrogant SOB he is!!

    00

  • #
    wendy

    Where our carbon tax will be going………..

    http://www.worldcountries.info/Economy/Economy-Nigeria.php

    This is just one of the ‘Poor’ countries that our carbon taxes will be going to. Check out their export commodities, proven gas and oil reserves etc. , and who are their export partners.

    Choose from the list of ‘poor’ countries on the heading. Most have an abundance of natural resources. Why are they ‘poor’.?

    Does Shell need our tax monies to fix their pipelines ?
    http://ourworld.unu.edu/en/nigerias-agony-dwarfs-gulf-oil-spill/

    00

  • #

    Wendy,

    Anytime Andy Pitman wants to let me know there is an error I would be most happy to correct it. If it annoys him so much it’s a tad strange that he doesn’t just write to me. He has my email — he used to email me over the 18 months before I wrote that post. (Could it be that he’s paid even more?) I simply went to the Uni’s website and got the standard salaries for set positions down.

    I think he did see that article I wrote though, because his emails to me stopped after that. Previously he would CC me sometimes when he wrote to other skeptics.

    Jo

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas!!

    She’s the one giving them fleas

    and me indigestion

    She could write a book with Bjorn Lomborg: “Sceptics Really Smell, I ought to know because I lived with them for a while”

    00

  • #
    wendy

    Hi Jo (99),

    I sent this reply to Pitman:-
    =========
    WHY NOT EMAIL JONOVA AND CORRECT HER MISCONCEPTIONS THEN IF YOU ARE “seriously annoyed by this”?????

    OR ARE YOU “Andy Pitman” NOT MAN ENOUGH AND TOO GUTLESS??????
    ========

    I await his reply with baited breath…….

    00

  • #
    wendy

    “Richard” (93),
    Some information about the WMO……

    The models are wrong by William Kininmonth: Meteorologist and former head of Australia’s National Climate Centre. He was also Australian delegate to the World Meteorological Organization’s Commission for Climatology (1982-98) | Climate Realists

    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3855

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Jo: # 99 & wendy: # 101

    So the lesson for today, guys is: do not annoy the Sheila’s. But of course, you all knew that already :-)

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    I wish some of this bravery would rub off on people like Penelope Wong, Christine Milne, Christina Figueroa of the UN, Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Wendy 102

    Thanks. I was asked to write an article in a similar vein recently but there’s no point writing a new one when there are so many that can be taken off the shelf and the odd edit done (Rudd out – Gillard in, change date, in that case).

    I think it’s time to move focus from policy driven by CO2 hard-wired climate model output to policy driven by carbon hard-wired economic model output and CO2/Carbon hard-wired climate-economic coupled model output. A nasty combination and diabolical assumptions.

    e.g. I’m back-tracking into this report

    Economic modelling of New Zealand climate change policy
    Report to Ministry for the Environment
    20 May 2009

    This is how the stupidity is extrapolated.

    00

  • #
    Fred Firth

    I imagine Heathrow and Gatwick will be fairly quiet soon. I was about to book a flight to London and wondered why is was suddenly a lot cheaper to fly to Paris. It used to cost the same.
    Just found out that since November 2010, premium flights to/from Australia are subject to carbon tax of GBP170. So it’s Paris and the Eurostar for me.
    The U.K government must have employed the social enginering experts from South Australia for their advice.

    00

  • #
  • #
    pattoh

    Slightly off topic but worth a comment.

    Don’t you think it is exquisitely hypocritical for the media to cry foul at the hint that they may get their wings clipped over publishing Wikileaks while at the same time actively suppressing & ridiculing the sceptics & contrary science?

    They are kicking and screaming & invoking the “right to know” but when it comes to AGW they are themslves self appointed propagandists ,spruikers & pretty much editors in lockstep.

    Armchair Socialists, Week-end Earth-Mothers & Fair-weather Fundamentalists:-

    GET DOWN THE BACK & CHOP SOME FIREWOOD!

    By the time you wake up, you might just need it!

    00

  • #
  • #

    Well well well. If anybody was in any doubt that our esteemed European Beurocrats/Politicians were in it to line-up their already burgeoning pockets, doubt no more.

    The snouts are well and truly in it.

    MEPs award themselves £91,000 tax free expenses a year

    MEPs will next year take home £91,000 in tax free expenses without having to provide any proof of expenditure as part of an increased pay and perks package.

    A backdated salary rise combined with increased allowances means that all 736 European Parliament deputies will receive a New Year’s lump sum gift of over £5,400 despite pay freezes and cuts for the voters they represent across the EU.

    It will take their net personal income to more than £170,000 in 2011.

    “The sheer amount of money on offer to MEPs increases the incentive to make as much out of the system as possible.”

    Well may the students riot, but when will they learn that these are the same beurocrats telling us to tighten our belts, walk to work, keep heaters/coolers to a minimum and pay 2x 3x 5x more for our energy bills.

    The ganders of the beurocracy have really fooled the gooses, the “greenie” students.

    Lets see these hypocritical students GETUP now.

    00

  • #

    [...] JO NOVA Cancun in a nutshell: nothing achieved but it’s a Big PR Success Posted on December 12th, 2010  http://joannenova.com.au/2010/12/cancun-in-a-nutshell-nothing-achieved-but-its-a-big-pr-success/ [...]

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    Pat at 27 and everyone else there is an on line petition proposed to be launched and I’ll let you know when that happens; keep an eye out!!!!

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Well well well, the greenies are starting to fight among themselves now. The end can’t be too far.


    14 Dec 2010: Concerns About Golden Eagles
    Thwart Growth of Wind Energy in U.S. West

    Fears that wind turbines could threaten protected golden eagles in the western U.S. threaten to undermine several major wind energy projects. Earlier this year, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management indefinitely suspended issuing wind permits on federal land, according to an Associated Press report. That decision has halted efforts to expedite construction of four major wind farms — including three in California — and makes it unlikely that the projects will qualify for federal stimulus funds worth hundreds of millions of dollars before the Dec. 31 deadline. Biologists say populations of the eagle have declined in recent years, in part because birds are being killed by turbines. According to a memo obtained by the AP, energy developers must submit protection plans before wind permits will be granted. Five years ago, Congress set a target for the addition of enough renewable energy projects on federal land to power 5 million homes by 2015. To date, only two of 250 proposed wind projects have been approved, and neither one has been built.

    And earlier this year solar farms planned for the Mojave Desert were thwarted.

    It’s Green Against Green
    In Mojave Desert Solar Battle

    Few places are as well suited for large-scale solar projects as California’s Mojave Desert. But as mainstream environmental organizations push plans to turn the desert into a center for renewable energy, some green groups — concerned about spoiling this iconic Western landscape — are standing up to oppose them.

    Over the past few years, Goldman Sachs, utility giants Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) and FLP Group, and a slew of Silicon Valley-backed startups have filed applications to build solar power plants on hundreds of thousands of acres of federal land in California’s Mojave Desert and across the desert Southwest.

    Now comes the backlash.

    In December, this coalition found itself outflanked by a small Southern California group called the Wildlands Conservancy that persuaded U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein to introduce legislation banning renewable energy development on more than a million acres of the Mojave — including the land on which PG&E and others had set their sights.

    I support THE REAL GREENS

    Both articles from Yale Environment 360

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Baa 113

    There’s a conflict of interest in Tasmania too
    ——————————————————————————————————————–
    Where climate and conservation collide

    December 13, 2010

    If ever a case signalled the end of easy answers to our search for clean energy, it’s that of the wedgie.

    We have had a complex relationship with the wedge-tailed eagle. Last century it was nearly annihilated as a sheep killer.

    This writer remembers driving along a ghastly fence line hung for a kilometre with wedgie carcasses after a local shoot in Victoria’s western district.
    Advertisement: Story continues below

    Today such prejudices have largely disappeared. Respect for the country’s great raptor instead approaches the historic norm. Eagles have stood for us as symbols of strength and power from the days of the Ancient Greeks.

    Still the wedgie gets run over on our roads, and flies into things that share its aerial domain — such as wind turbines.

    As we search for means to sharply cut carbon emissions from energy production, increasingly we are turning to wind farms.

    Continues……….
    ——————————————————————————————————————–
    But on a lighter note
    ——————————————————————————————————————–
    Rising sea levels will swamp parts of Sydney

    Tom Arup ENVIRONMENT CORRESPONDENT – smh

    December 16, 2010

    A NUMBER of Sydney suburbs will be inundated regularly because of climate change-driven sea-level rises, threatening homes and community infrastructure worth billion of dollars by the end of the century, new projections show.

    In the first detailed attempt to study the impacts of sea-level rises on low-lying coastal areas and help local government planning, the government has released high-resolution maps that show the areas in Sydney and the central coast most under threat from sea-level rises.

    Sydney suburbs facing significant danger of inundation, even with limited rises, include Caringbah, Kurnell, Cromer and Manly Vale. Significant parts of Newcastle and the central coast are also potentially in harm’s way.

    Continues……..

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Up-thread I linked to a request I made to NZ Office of Climate Change which I duplicate here.
    ——————————————————————————————————————————
    UN mandate to establish a “Green Climate Fund”

    To the Minister of Climate Change Dr Smith or representative,

    I am trying to access the formal contract by which the 194 nations (as per news reports) agreed to give the UN the mandate to establish a $100bn per year by 2020 “Green Climate Fund”.

    The details of the fund are found in the UN document:-

    “Outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention”

    http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/cop_16/application/pdf/cop16_lca.pdf

    There are no signatories listed in the Advance unedited version Draft decision [-/CP.16]

    Please provide, if it exists:-

    1) A link to the document other than the above that was signed by the representatives of the 194 nations that agreed to provide the mandate to the UN to pursue “a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources” to establish a “Green Climate Fund”.

    2) A list of countries that disagreed or abstained from agreeing to the establishment of a “Green Climate Fund” by the UN..

    Or,

    Is the agreement by the 194 nations to establish a “Green Climate Fund”. a verbal agreement to the written document above?

    Or,

    Is there no obligation yet for any country and no mandate for UN implementation of the “Green Climate Fund” until signing of an agreement at COP17 Durban?

    Sincerely,

    Richard Cumming
    —————————————————————————————————————————-
    Response so far …………..crickets………………birds chirping…………….

    Have now made the same request to Dr Smith directly and I hope that other Kiwis here do the same here http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/Email.htm?id=7c8ffef6-b7fd-4a93-959e-7ab935bdd549

    I also hope that Australians make a similar inquiry to the equivalent government office of H.E. Mr. Gregory Combet Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency here http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/memfeedback.asp?id=YW6

    Isn’t anyone else curious?

    00

  • #

    There never has been hard scientific evidence that the CO2 content in the atmosphere actually causes an increase in its general temperature.
    The original report by the Royal Society in response to funding by the Thatcher government of UK was, that human activity (breathing and farting) does tend to asssist in the increase of CO2. However there are so many variables in climate determinates that to make a difnitive assesment is extremely unlikely. This is no way an affirmative, as it was so interpreted by a consevation movement running out of causes to espouse and a government anxious ot increase its tax base. They both shouted from the roof tops that Global Warming was certainty by ‘scientific proof’ and somethng should be done about it now. When doubts were expressed they were quickly silenced or left unpublished except for maverics such as the London Daily News.
    A Royal Society report published early this year stated that, there has been no new evidence to justify any change in thei original assessement of the impact of CO2 and other green house gases (having a total volume of 1.46% of the atmosphere, of which CO2 is .043%)on the temperature of the atmosphere. It also noted that, there are too many variants to assess correctly just what influence the Green House gases actually have on this temperature level.

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    “a green true believer’s point of view” of the Cancun outcome.
    ———————————————————————————————————————-
    Bureaucrats Swindle Greens In Cancun

    Walter Russell Mead

    December 12, 2010 – THE AMERICAN INTEREST

    The climate conference in Cancun was a turning point for the world’s greens. There were two possible outcomes. One was a total political meltdown in Cancun that would have been hideously embarrassing in the short run but that in the long term would have cleared the way for more hopeful approaches to carbon issues. The other was a cobbled together pseudo-deal of some kind that would have avoided short term embarrassment but over the long run would doom the greens to a future of frustration and futility.

    Outcome one would have helped the planet; outcome two helps the bureaucratic rent seekers and process junkies of the world’s diplomatic establishment.

    Guess who won?

    As green negotiators in Cancun ended their embarrassing two-week junket (videos of partying bureaucrats did not go down well with voters in a northern hemisphere freezing in an early winter), it’s clear that the bureaucrats did what bureaucrats do: they kept a ‘process’ (job-creating bureaucratic gravy train) alive while doing little or nothing about the problem they were supposed to solve.

    The essence of the non-deal deal reached at Cancun: Japan, Russia and other countries sick and tired of the idiocies of the Kyoto Protocol agree to say nothing that prevents other countries from pretending that the Kyoto Protocol lives; advanced industrial countries agree to keep discussing the fantasy that by 2020 they will be collectively shipping $100 billion a year to developing countries; developing countries agree to pretend to believe this will happen; countries agree to continue making laughably inadequate and also non-binding ‘pledges’ on carbon emissions; and everyone agrees not to think about the reality that pigs will fly before a treaty embodying any of these ideas will be ratified by the US Senate.

    From a green true believer’s point of view this is less than zero. If everybody lives up to the pledges made to date, the earth will, according to the scientists involved in the process, warm by more than 4 degrees centigrade instead of the 2 degree target. And the pledges, weak and symbolic as they are, have unsustainable conditions attached to them. Without that $100 billion in aid, no developing country will feel bound by its pledge and there is no shadow of an agreement on which rich countries will stump up how much, how this mythical pie will be divided, much less on ways to keep international bad actors and rogue states (North Korea, Iran, Sudan, you name it) from getting their hands on the cash.

    But no matter: for the bureaucrats and NGO staff it’s a clear and resounding win. The mice have unanimously voted to keep meeting at taxpayers’ expense until someone bells that pesky cat. The UN process has kept just enough diplomatic credibility to make several new rounds of vast, unfocused global gabfests of bureaucrats and NGO administrators inevitable. More pre-meeting meetings will be held; more secretariats will employ new staff; more non-papers will be circulated, marked up and revised. Paychecks will be mailed; travel vouchers issued. Life will be good.

    It’s probably a win for the Obama administration, too. For now, the President got the green monkey off his back. President Obama hasn’t delivered cap and trade or a carbon tax to his green backers, and the early signs are that the EPA is backing off from fights with the Republicans in Congress — but Cancun didn’t collapse into complete and utter chaos, so the President can, just, argue that his administration is keeping green hopes alive.

    Next to the bureaucrats and the White House, the real winners are the climate change skeptics. If you think that climate change is a myth or a naturally occurring phenomenon, Cancun helped you out. The UN process of endlessly negotiating a treaty which will either be so weak it is pointless or so controversial the US Senate will never ratify it (and will quite possibly be both) consumes time, money, energy and political capital that would otherwise go towards green efforts that might actually accomplish something.

    The “success” of Cancun is a best case scenario from the skeptic’s point of view. The cost of funding endless UN gabfests in exotic tourist locations (next up: South Africa in 2012) is trivial compared to the cost of any serious efforts to deal with carbon emissions on the scale current scientific theory suggests would be needed. Bureaucrats will dance, journalists will spin and carbon will spew, and the greens will be unable to escape this dysfunctional UN process for years and maybe decades to come. More, the fact that axis of ankle-biter countries like Venezuela, Nicaragua and Bolivia use these conferences to flaunt their anti-American credentials — and seek to maximize their influence by threatening to veto the proceedings — ensures that both this process and anything it produces will be unpopular in the US. The more that the radical anti-American gasbags get mixed up in this process, the easier it will be to find 34 senators ready to kill a climate treaty. If you are a climate skeptic, a global warming hand-off to the UN is the best thing since the Hummer.

    No sane green would want this result, but the greens have run up against a force stronger than climate change, more insidious than the desertification of the Sahel, more inexorable than the rising of the seas: the bureaucratic instinct for process. Processes and institutions once initiated cannot be allowed to die.

    The news reports on the conference are visibly torn. On the one hand, reporters know that at the level of substance this is a complete travesty and a rout. A facade of agreement was carefully constructed by relentlessly sacrificing substance from the various texts. And as loyal spear carriers for the movement, many reporters want to make this point.

    But too much emphasis on the utterly empty nature of the ‘accords’ would be, well, defeatist. It would suggest that the noble greens are failing to save the planet, that their chosen course is disastrous and that the entire global green agenda is utopian. That cannot be allowed.

    Also, even the most servile lapdogs of the press are bound by certain narrative conventions. There has to be a story. “Thousands of bureaucrats swill canapes, agree to swill more next year” is not news. “Greens fobbed off with empty words,” would be a story, but not the kind of story the press wants to tell.

    So what we have now is a rash of stories to tell us first that a great victory has been won. Agreement has been snatched from the jaws of failure; creative diplomats resolve seemingly unbridgeable gaps! Delegates applaud chair as harmony reigns! All those naysayers and prophets of doom were wrong: the process worked!

    As the AP headline puts it, “UN Climate Meeting OKs Green Fund in New Accord.” Only in the body of the story do we learn that “The Cancun Agreements created institutions for delivering technology and funding to poorer countries, though they did not say where the funding would come from.” [Italics added by your humble blogger] The lack of specificity on funding is no doubt a minor detail: with mobs rioting in half the capitals of Europe against government funding cutbacks and Tea Party Republicans fixing to take over the US House of Representatives as our deficits skyrocket, funding large new foreign aid programs should not be a problem.

    The New York Times turns up the volume: it is more critical than the AP about the lack of substance, but hails these confessedly vapid agreements as glorious vindications of the wisdom of the greens and pours scorn on those foolish critics who prophesied that nothing serious would come from Cancun.

    “In all, the success of the talks was a breath of life for a process that many had declared too cumbersome and contentious to achieve meaningful progress,” asserted the Times, citing the head of climate and energy programs at the World Resources Institute who said: “‘This agreement was a remarkable turnaround for a multilateral approach to address climate change, including commitments on emissions from all the world’s major economies.”

    Yet the Times did better than many of its colleagues; although the second graph of the story is heavy on the official optimism, a sharp eyed reader can infer what actually happened behind the veil: “Although the steps were fairly modest and do not require the broad changes that scientists say are needed to avoid dangerous climate change, the result was a major step forward for a process that has stumbled badly in recent years.” Further below, it allows Jennifer Morgan, the WRI official quoted in the story, to make a couple more crucial points: “But she said the nations left many issues unresolved, including whether to seek to enshrine the goals into a legally-binding agreement and the sources of the $100 billion in annual climate-related aid that the wealthy nations have promised to provide.”

    A genuinely journalistic account of the conference would have highlighted the way Cancun tied the green agenda ever more firmly to a dysfunctional process, and noted more clearly that the $100 billion aid pledge is one of a long list of aid pledges that the rich countries keep making — but which are almost never kept. It would have compared this pledge, for example, to the solemn and frequently repeated pledges made starting in 1970 to raise foreign aid to 0.7% of GDP among rich countries and to the declarations of various summits on aid for Africa and the much ballyhooed UN Millennium Development Goals.

    Forty years after that historic pledge to pay 0.7% of GDP for ODA (Overseas Development Assistance) only 5 (small) members of the rich-nation OECD club have reached this goal. The big economies — Japan, the US, Germany — are nowhere near.

    More recently, at the Gleneagles Summit of the G-8 countries in 2005, the attendees swore an oath of mickle might to double their aid by 2010 including $25 billion per year in new aid to sub-Saharan Africa. The invaluable Financial Times reports on how that had worked out by the time the target date came around:

    The Gleneagles declaration by the Group of Eight in July 2005 to double aid to Africa by 2010 shows the dangers of making specific pledges, writes Chris Giles in London.Now the deadline is due, aid to Africa has not doubled from $25bn in 2004 to $50bn in 2010 and the OECD estimates donor nations will fall $14bn short.

    For years after 2005 the G8 ritually repeated the Gleneagles pledge. Even in 2009, when the target was almost certain to be missed, the G8 leaders reiterated “the importance of fulfilling our commitments to increase aid made at Gleneagles”.

    But once it became clear the target was going to be missed, the G8 had to backtrack. At the Muskoka summit in June, any mention of Gleneagles was deleted, to the disgust of aid agencies. After this, a new focus without specific targets will be warmly received in many quarters.

    Is there anybody on planet earth who thinks that $100 billion is going to be paid? The point is that all the “concessions” by developing countries are contingent on the satisfactory payment of the full $100 billion in “pledges” by the rich ones

    The news at Cancun is that the global green agenda has now turned into one of these endlessly running UN catfights in which developing countries try to guilt-trip rich countries out of money which their corrupt and inefficient bureaucracies often squander (if the corrupt leaders don’t steal it first). The rich countries fob off the third world guilt trippers and their clueless but noisy NGO allies in the advanced countries with hollow promises. These processes usually grind on pointlessly for decades (keeping NGO staff and diplomats gainfully if not usefully employed) with astonishingly little impact on real world events.

    That is the big news out of Cancun; the green agenda has fallen into a UN black hole and for now at least it cannot get out.

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Re 116

    Not much difference between Green and MMCC sceptic perspectives of the UN bureaucratic manipulation of the Cancun outcome going by that article.

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    I have received a response from Paul Eastwood | Senior Advisor – Environment and Climate Change New Zealand Aid Programme / Environment Division Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to my inquiry that is duplicated here:-
    ——————————————————————————————————————–
    Subject: UN mandate to establish a “Green Climate Fund”

    To the Minister of Climate Change Dr Smith or representative,

    I am trying to access the formal contract by which the 194 nations (as per news reports) agreed to give the UN the mandate to establish a $100bn per year by 2020 “Green Climate Fund”.

    The details of the fund are found in the UN document:-

    “Outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention”

    http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/cop_16/application/pdf/cop16_lca.pdf

    There are no signatories listed in the Advance unedited version Draft decision [-/CP.16]

    Please provide, if it exists:-

    1) A link to the document other than the above that was signed by the representatives of the 194 nations that agreed to provide the mandate to the UN to pursue “a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources” to establish a “Green Climate Fund”.

    2) A list of countries that disagreed or abstained from agreeing to the establishment of a “Green Climate Fund” by the UN..

    Or,

    Is the agreement by the 194 nations to establish a “Green Climate Fund”. a verbal agreement to the written document above?

    Or,

    Is there no obligation yet for any country and no mandate for UN implementation of the “Green Climate Fund” until signing of an agreement at COP17 Durban?

    Sincerely,

    Richard Cumming
    ——————————————————————————————————————–
    This inquiry was to the Office of Climate Change (I have since made an identical inquiry to the Minister of Climate Change and am waiting for the reply).

    The internal re-direction
    ——————————————————————————————————————–
    —–Original Message—–
    From: Kay Harrison [mailto:Kay.Harrison@mfe.govt.nz]
    Sent: Friday, 17 December 2010 8:41 a.m.
    To: EASTWOOD, Paul (IDG, SAE)
    Cc: Fiona Montgomery
    Subject: FW: UN mandate to establish a “Green Climate Fund”
    Importance: High

    Hi Paul

    We’ve received the inquiry below concerning the Green Fund.

    Would you mind dealing with it and copying us into the reply please? We can then use your considered response for any others that come in.

    Regards

    Kay
    ——————————————————————————————————————–
    Paul’s response.
    ——————————————————————————————————————–
    Dear Richard,

    Your query concerning the Green Climate Fund has been passed to me.

    The decision to establish the Fund is contained within the UNFCCC decision document -/CP.16. This document, and hence all decisions contained therein, was adopted by consensus by the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the UNFCCC at its sixteenth session in Cancun, Mexico. The COP comprises all UN Member States, hence when a COP decision is adopted there is no need for an annex containing signatories, nor is there a separate document. When the document was discussed by the COP, Bolivia voiced its concerns. These were of a general nature and not specific to the Fund. As is normal practice, any concerns raised by Parties are noted by the Chair and included in the meeting report (not yet available).

    Once the Fund is established and operational, all developed countries will be expected to contribute.

    I hope this answers your questions.

    Best wishes,
    Paul

    Paul Eastwood | Senior Advisor – Environment and Climate Change New Zealand Aid Programme / Environment Division Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade
    Tel: +64 4 4398729
    Mob: + 64 21 2257765
    http://www.aid.govt.nz http://www.mfat.govt.nz

    New Zealand Aid Programme…towards a more secure, equitable, and prosperous world

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Re 119

    I’ve just received a response from

    Phil Gumsey

    Private Secretary Climate Change

    Office of Hon Dr Nick Smith

    Minister for Environment, Issues and ACC

    Informing me that Officials at the Ministry of the Environment will be responding to my questions.

    So there you have it.

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    Uh oh. Mr Combet says today that climate negotiations are “back on track” and seems to regard the Cancun summit as a raging success. Do I detect a hint of spin somewhere? I sniff a carbon tax carbon price relentlessly coming towards us all.

    Parliament House has got to disappear beneath a 20 m snowdrift before these people get the message.

    00

  • #
    NoIdea

    An interesting article on the climategate “hacks” or leaks can be seen at…

    http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2010/12/17/why-climategate-was-not-a-computer-hack/

    Does this put the hacking myth finally into the realms of fantasy?

    NoIdea

    00

  • #
    wendy

    “Richard C (NZ)” (115), I have sent a similiar request to Combet.

    I await a response from him with baited breath………

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Wendy

    It will be interesting to see how it reconciles with the answer I received (# 119) if nothing else.

    Cheers

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Re4 119, 120

    Have now received this from the NZ Ministry for the Environment (much different to # 119)
    ——————————————————————————————————————–
    Hi Richard,

    I refer to your email regarding the Cancun climate change meetings. You’ve asked about the Green Climate Fund. There is no obligation yet for any country but note that a standing committee has been established to work through implementation details for the fund. The fund idea was born out of the Copenhagen Accord last year – as part of a balanced package of decisions on mitigation, finance, technology and adaptation.

    It’s also worth noting that the Cancun Agreements do not constitute a draft treaty. Thus New Zealand, and 193 other countries have pledged support for the continuation of efforts to reach a global treaty rather than ‘signing up’ to a legally binding agreement. The government would need to carefully and cautiously consider the implications for New Zealand before deciding whether to sign and ratify any treaty that may come out of future negotiations. As occurred with previous agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol, a treaty needs to undergo a thorough National Interest Analysis, public consultation and be approved by both Cabinet and Parliament in order to become legally binding on New Zealand.

    The only country to disagree with the Cancun Agreements was Bolivia.

    Regards. Roger

    Roger Lincoln – Senior Policy Analyst, International Climate & Environment
    Ministry for the Environment – Manatu Mo Te Taiao
    DDI: 04 439 7633 Mob: 027 290 7625 Website: http://www.mfe.govt.nz
    23 Kate Sheppard Place, PO Box 10362, Wellington 6143
    ——————————————————————————————————————–
    Replied

    Thank you Roger,

    I am very much encouraged by this:-

    [quote]

    There were indications from my investigations so far that New
    Zealand’s national interest was being circumvented.

    Regards

    Richard

    00

  • #

    An importantcliamte determnant is the inlcination of the Earth’s axis to the plane of its orbit.
    It was shown by simulatied modeling in 183-9, long before compuers am=nd digital porojections that if the axzis were at 90 degrees to the plane of orbit there would be no ice caps at the poles. This outocme is quite logical considering the position of Earth relative to the sun.
    What is significant is that as the inlcintion from the ‘verticle’ the polar ice caps is formed and increased arithmetically as the inclination increased. The maximum ice copverage appearaed to be when the inclination reached between 30 and 4o degrees. This has been verified by recent astronomical obsevations by observatories in Eastern Europe.
    At present the axis is inclined at 21 degrees as it oscilates between 20 and 25 over the centuries.
    Thus the present inclination of the axis to the plane of its orbit influences a minimum of ice at the poles. This ice coverage has no significant relationship to the surrouding air temperature.
    Reords show that Polar ice coverage has varied widely long before the dawn of the industrial era in 1750 CE.
    That the surounding air temperrature melts the polar ice, is only one of the many false assumptions made by the pseudo scienists quoted by the IPCC in its drive to hold the developed world to ransom.

    00

  • #

    Correction to comments. the date of the similatipn of Earth’s axis inclination was 1938-9. Sorry for the inadeqate scan of text.

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    I better highlight the difference between the TWO NZ Ministerial reports #119 and #125

    #119 Paul Eastwood | Senior Advisor – Environment and Climate Change New Zealand Aid Programme / Environment Division
    Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade

    #125 Roger Lincoln – Senior Policy Analyst, International Climate & Environment
    Ministry for the Environment

    The first that the Green Climate Fund and the Cancun Agreements were a done deal (#119), the second that they were anything but (#125).

    Surprisingly, it’s the Environment Ministry report that says no deal yet.

    It’s the NZ policy wonks who are pushing the pollies for a “legally binding agreement” and in this case Foreign Affairs and Trade are pushing more than Environment – it really is about the money.

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    “done-deal” at the UN
    ———————————————————————————————————————-
    UN Urges Nations to Act on Cancún Agreements

    Tuesday, 21 December 2010, 11:09 am
    Press Release: United Nations

    The United Nations climate change chief today called on countries to follow up on the recent conference in Cancún with higher global emissions cuts and the rapid launch of new institutions and funds.

    “Cancún was a big step, bigger than many imagined might be possible. But the time has come for all of us to exceed our own expectations because nothing less will do,” said UNFCCC Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres.

    She stressed that the ‘Cancún Agreements’ needs to be implemented as quickly as possible, and be accompanied by “credible accountability systems that will help in measuring real progress.”

    “All countries, but particularly industrialized nations, need to deepen their emission reduction efforts and to do so quickly,” said Ms. Figueres.

    Ms. Figueres stressed that these institutions must be launched quickly, noting that millions of poor and vulnerable people around the world have been waiting years to get the full level of assistance they need.

    “I expect in particular to see rapid decisions on appointing the board of the new Green Fund and the Committee of the Technology Mechanism. I also look forward to receiving the details of fast-start financing from industrialized countries so the secretariat can compile the information that shows clearly the amounts that have been raised and are being disbursed,” she said.

    “Cancún has significantly expanded the menu of climate implementation and resources available to countries under the United Nations,” said Ms. Figures. “The imperative to act is now.”

    Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon also highlighted the achievements of the Cancún conference in a message to the closing ceremony for the International Year of Biodiversity, held in the Japanese city of Kanazawa on Saturday.

    In particular, he noted the important agreement reached on REDD Plus, backed by the financial resources to implement it. Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) is an effort to create a financial value for the carbon stored in forests, offering incentives for developing countries to reduce emissions from forested lands and invest in low-carbon paths to sustainable development.

    00

  • #

    an example of the false so called science used by the Climate Change drivers.
    Coal gas is CO (carbon monoxide) not CO2 so the emissions from coal cannot be CO2. Besides,when coal burns it is the gas that burns not the hard carbon so there is very little emission of CO.
    The gas emitted from a petrol engine also is CO NOT CO2
    Neither is there any hard evidence that CO2 is a significant determinant of air temperature. The mojor green house gas is actually water vapour which increases in volume as the temperature increases, rather than the inverse effect.

    00

  • #
    Joe Veragio

    Cancun may be over , but we don’t have to wait for another year…
    There’s more of Monckton at his finest … on the climate bugaboos.

    00

  • #
    Fred Firth

    By Their Power Balance hologram wristbands We Shall Know Them.

    In a shock move today, the makers of Power Balance wristbands have been forced to say they do not actually work. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, in a glaring display of overregulation, has called their claims “misleading” and demanded Power Balance Australia withdraw them. http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/evil-government-says-holograms-not-real-science/

    IMHO, the promoters big mistake was to bow to pressure from the ACCC who are known plastic wrist band sceptics. Everyone knows the ACCC is in the pocket of “Big Rubber”

    If only the makers had donated a few thousand Power Balance wrist bands to the climate scientists at Cancun and Copenhagen. They could have dropped the word “balance” and changed the name to Power hologram wrist band. I bet that before the climate change conference was over, the plastic hologram wrist-band science debate would be decided. If the price was right there could even be a consensus.

    Just think of the opportunities for new market channels, After finding a word, similar to anthropogenic, to make the wrist bands sound super scientific, (hologram is a bit 1970’s), Climate Change minister, Greg Combet, could set-up a Power Hologram Wrist-Band Committee to spearhead an Aussie, Low-Carbon Power Hologram (insert super scientific word here) Wrist Band Legislation Commission.

    The , Low-Carbon Power Hologram (insert super scientific word similar to anthropogenic here) Wrist Band Legislation Commission, would, after exhausting their hundred million dollar allocated budget, move to elevate Greg Combet’s decision for Wrist Band legislation to a community consensus decision, to make a low carbon hologram version mandatory wear under a new billion dollar Power Hologram Wrist Band scheme. Of course another commission would need to be set-up to find ways of keeping “cowboys” out. (should that be cow persons?)

    Just think of the benefits. The low carbon Power (new fancy word) hologram wrist band deniers would be easy to single out by their bare wrists.
    To protect the “bare wristers” from hate crimes, the carbon cops could, in the middle of the night, take them (for their own protection from the mob) to one of the new Building Education Revolution halls, where they can be re-educated, before the kid’s morning lessons start, or if that fails, lobotomised. Most of the Power Balance wristband deniers I have met, said they would actually prefer the second option.

    If only these wrist band promoters had called in a Nobel Prize winning science expert like Al Gore, Power Balance Hologram Wrist-Band science could be guiding mankind (oops people-kind) to a better future.
    Instead we are going back to the bad old days of Elements, Relativity, DNA and all the other old stuff with easy to pronounce words.

    Fred Firth

    00