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

After Durban – First Thoughts

Geoff Sherrington analyzes the words in the Durban agreement, and finds a telling tale of politics, money and influence, but not one of probability, maths, food, shelter or freedom (which do not appear at all). The word science appears 6 times in 21,313 words. It’s the mere token excuse that underlies everything else. This is a legal style document, so it is to be expected that it’s dominated by “parties” and “reports” but given the uncertainties involved in predicting the climate, a rational document, designed to serve the people, would surely include statistics, cost benefits, and mentions of probabilities. But then, we always knew that the big greenhouse scare was not about the emissions or the atmosphere, but about status, power and money. — Jo

—————————————-

By guest author Geoff Sherrington.

The killing fields of Durban have produced agreement by many countries to one of the more extraordinary and preposterous documents one could read. It is so contrived by the UN that it is hard to know if it is the correct document, or maybe an unadopted working draft in progress.

The winners and losers at Durban were? The losers were the John and Joan Citizens of the World, who became poorer as the curtain fell on Durban.The winners, a group of wealthy, heartless individuals, many with (shall we say, to avoid libel) interesting backgrounds.The political war was won by the early placement of key people in positions where, after 2 decades of promotion, many became influential enough to dominate the political numbers. Of course, this tactic took money, because the common driver was money. The wealthy seek to drive change because more money can be made during change than in the quiet periods between.

Alas, at Durban, the science was not discussed in this document. Discussion was overtly political and the outcome overtly communist in the worst sense of that word. The word ‘science’ appears 6 times in this document of 300KB and 56 pages with a count of 21,313 words.

Here is one of the paragraphs about Science from the Durban document, with 2 of the 6 uses of the word ‘science’ from a total count of 21,313 words:

“(Previous work) recognizes that climate change represents an urgent and potentially irreversible threat to human societies and the planet, and thus requires to be urgently addressed by all Parties, Recognizing that deep cuts in global greenhouse gas emissions are required according to science, and as documented in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, with a view to reducing global greenhouse gas emissions so as to hold the increase in global average temperature below 2 °C above preindustrial levels, and that Parties should take urgent action to meet this long-term goal, consistent with science and on the basis of equity;……”

In the meantime, here is a simple word analysis of the content of the Durban document. For comparison, the word count use gives ‘and’ 175 times and ‘the’ 381 times.

Words that miss out completely.

  • Food, Clothing, Shelter, Security, Freedom
  •  Law, Legislation, Justice
  •  Punishment, Penalty
  •  Excuse, Reason
  •  Probable
  •  Proof
  •  Wrong, Dissent, Doubt, Refund, Rebate, Reversal
  •  Profit, Loss (of invested money)
  •  Vote
  •  Democracy, Democratic, Liberal – but see Social (14)
  •  Withdraw
  •  Goodwill, Reward, Donate
  •  Experiment, Physics, Chemistry
  •  Statistics, Statistical, Mathematic, Mathematical
  •  Sceptic, Skeptic, Skepticism

Next, some words that are used rarely.

  • Voluntary(1) as in Participation  in  the  registry  shall  be  voluntary
  •  Improve (2) as in improve the financial flow mechanism; and improve design of paperwork
  •  Poverty (3), typically as in poverty eradication … overriding priorities of developing countries
  •  Scientific (12) used in Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (9); and alone (3)
  •  Urgent (6)
  •  Sustainable (9)

Some that we might expect to see more often:

  • Experience (25) dominantly in the context of gaining experience with paperwork and procedures
  • Environment (14), Environmental (4)
  • Knowledge (12), but often as knowledge gained in handling paperwork and procedures
  • Consequence(s) (11)
  • Programme(s) (24)
  • Document (21)
  • Greenhouse (31) sometimes in the title of past reports
  • Private (15) mostly as a sector, a source of more money, but not so much in decision making.

Finally, to the 0ver-40′s, where the heart of the report is found.

In no particular order:

  • Submit(s) etc (43)
  • Body (34), Group (42), Secretariat (54)
  • Decide(s) (50) often pre-decided
  • Consider(s) (69)
  • Convention (33)
  • Agree (39) mostly as in agree to adopt procedures
  • Reduction (50) but compare with Increase (6)
  • Decide (63), Decides(s) (50)
  • Consider(s) (69)
  • Request(s) (85)
  • Provide (83)
  • Mitigation (81) but almost always of pollution rather than of hardship
  • Action(s) (67) mostly as in ‘you vill enjoy taking these actions’
  • Mitigation (81)
  • Finance (26) + Financial (67)
  • Information (143)

And the most prevalent word in an ad hoc search? There are 2 that almost dead-heat.

  •  PARTIES has 377 mentions.
  •  REPORT(s)(able)(ing) (228). Compare this with the most used English word, “the” at 381.

One can read into this word count analysis, informal though it is, that there is agreement to set up bodies to report to each other and to transfer money.The head bodies will get the lesser bodies to do the hard work, but they will remunerate themselves high in the distribution chain. It is the wet dream of the bureaucrat.

It is far less clear what they want to do with these reports and information, but some paragraphs have hints.

In Annex II, “The overall objectives of the International Assessment and Review process are to review the progress made in achieving emission reductions and assess the provision of financial, technological, and capacity-building support to developing country Parties, and to assess emissions and removals related to quantified economy-wide emission reduction targets under the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI), taking into account national circumstances, in a rigorous, robust and transparent manner, with a view to promoting comparability and building confidence.” What if a donor is underperforming? ” (a)  Any  Party  may  submit  through  the  Secretariat  written  questions electronically to the Party concerned in advance of the international assessment; (b) The Party under assessment should endeavour to respond to those questions, through the secretariat, within two months. The secretariat will compile the questions and answers and publish them on the UNFCCC website.”

This is a mild blackmail, using the “name and shame” procedure. It is not revealed if many bureaucrats will be needed to administer this mechanism.

“17.      Each  Annex II  Party shall  provide information on  the  financial support it  has provided, committed and/or pledged for the purpose of assisting non-Annex I Parties to mitigate GHG emissions and adapt to the adverse effects of climate change and any economic and social consequences of response measures, for capacity-building and technology transfer in the areas of mitigation and adaptation, where appropriate. To that end, each Annex II Party shall provide summary information in a textual and tabular format on allocation channels and annual contributions for the previous two calendar or financial years without overlaps with the previous reporting periods, including, as appropriate, to the following:

(a)  The Global Environment Facility, the Least Developed Countries Fund, the Special Climate Change Fund, the Adaptation Fund, the Green Climate Fund and the Trust Fund for Supplementary Activities;

(b) Other multilateral climate change funds;

(c) Multilateral financial institutions, including regional development banks;

(d) Specialized United Nations bodies;

(e) Contributions through bilateral, regional and other channels; (etc)

“Welcoming the fast-start finance provided by developed countries as part of their collective commitment to  provide new and  additional resources approaching USD  30 billion for the period 2010–2012,

Recalling 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,” (etc)

So, the money goes to funds. But how much money? What cut is taken by the “Specialized United Nations bodies”? What is the source of these monies? It is not all from Annexe I countries (the rich) to non-Annexe I countries (the poor). It also involves the private sector. The poor countries are required to report on the performance of private incoming funds, such as those involved in carbon markets. See Annex VIII-

“Criteria to be used to evaluate and select the host of the Climate Technology Centre and Network and information required to be included in the proposals includes several factors of equal weight, one of which is “(c) Demonstrated capability to build capacity and facilitate the transfer of technology and technology diffusion in developing countries;” (etc)

 This could carry implications for international patent protection or its lack of protection in underdeveloped countries.

Other analysts will produce their interpretations of the meaning of this miserable document, but most will have to conclude that it was designed by bureaucrats, will feed bureaucrats and will manage to let a residual of money collected under duress get through to the poorer countries – or else.

Unfortunately, all of this has very little to do with climate change. Have you ever seen a customary, credible, first-principles graph that links man-made greenhouse gas concentrations in the air to a change in climate, especially in temperature?

It is not my aim to discourage further, proper science and analysis. This has to continue at high quality. However, it seems that the general populace has to taste the bitter fruits of this Durban experiment to help them tell good science from contrived science in the future.

This takes time.

——————————————————————

 Disclaimer: Views expressed in a guest post are those of the author.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.0/10 (60 votes cast)
After Durban - First Thoughts , 9.0 out of 10 based on 60 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/dyugall

100 comments to After Durban – First Thoughts

  • #
    Crakar24

    I am surprised there is no mention of a “Logans run” type population control mechanism. Maybe they thought this was going just a bit too far?

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    Geoff that’s great comment; I love the idea of word counts as evidence of attached importance
    and there were an awful lot of words to be counted through – what a load of waffle verbiage I ploughed through yesterday when I read what I think were the final documents
    I’ll have more to say later but was just checking in Jo’s site at lunchtime and there’s your post so had to make a quick comment

    00

  • #
    brc

    This is a bit negative I think.

    We have all just seen that nations can, and will, stick two fingers at the IPCC, UNFCCC and Kyoto in general.

    Canada was just the brave first country off the ranks. It’s much easier for a USA or an Australia to do the same now now that Canada has taken much of the flak. And even easier for India and China to say ‘yes, yes, yes’ while doing zip about it.

    Everyone feels as though these people in important jobs have gotten the upper hand. But with no actual legal basis or force, the UN and it’s busybodies are really a toothless tiger compared to sovereign nations with voters, economies and standing armies.

    I saw it somewhere else, but the UNFCCC response to Canada is ‘stop! Or I’ll stay Stop again!’

    They didn’t get far enough to actually make anything legally binding. And as such, it’s about as legally binding as whatever rules kids come up with in their cubby house.

    If anyone actually makes one of these Kyoto-punishment payments (and doesn’t just re-label existing aid funds) then tell me about it, because so far it hasn’t happened. Which is why the crying from Durban was so loud. They are like a celebrity telethon where everyone pledged a billion dollars but nobody actually wrote out a cheque.

    00

    • #
      rukidding

      brc says

      But with no actual legal basis or force, the UN and it’s busybodies are really a toothless tiger compared to sovereign nations with voters, economies and standing armies.

      That is why one of the things they want to do is get countries to disarm and with moon bats like Combet and Brown I think Australia has a lot to worry about.

      00

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Yes, well disarmament is the last thing that will ever happen.

        The earliest form of “diplomacy” between the the various extended families of the primitive apes, that later became us humans, was to have a bigger and sharper stick and more heavy rocks to throw, than the other families; and, at the end of days, it will be the last form of “diplomacy”.

        That is ingrained in our psyche. Little children fight for the toys they want – they have tantrums if they cannot get what they desire. To quote George Carlin, “Nobody taught them to do that.”

        Bureaucrats have refined aggression into a stylised dance. But the snarl is still present under the veneer, and the heart rate is still elevated, and the point of balance still shifts slightly forward.

        We may have stepped back from mutual nuclear destruction, but “conventional weapons” will remain, along with the young people who wield them at the behest of the Politicians, prompted by the Bureaucrats.

        00

  • #
    Peter Lang

    Geoff Sherrington,

    Good approach. Very revealing. Thank you.

    00

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    I posted this earlier. It doesn’t seem to have got noticed. Info I think is good so it’s here in longhand.

    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=37ae6e96-802-23ad-4c8a-edf6d8150789

    Gore’s (Really) Inconvenient Timing – ‘Consensus’ On Man-Made Global Warming Collapses in 2008
    July 18, 2008

    Posted By Marc Morano – 3:25 PM ET – Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov

    Gore’s (Really) Inconvenient Timing – ‘Consensus’ On Man-Made Global Warming Collapses in 2008

    U.N. Warning of 10-Year ‘Climate Tipping Point’ Began in 1989

    Click Here to Read Part TWO of This Report:

    Former Vice-President Al Gore came to Washington on July 17, 2008, to deliver yet another speech warning of the “climate crisis.”

    “The leading experts predict that we have less than 10 years to make dramatic changes in our global warming pollution lest we lose our ability to ever recover from this environmental crisis,” Gore stated. But the former Vice President, who has been warning of a 10-year “tipping point” for several years now, appears to be unaware that the United Nations already started the 10-year countdown — in 1989!

    According to July 5, 1989, article in the Miami Herald, the then-director of the New York office of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), Noel Brown, warned of a “10-year window of opportunity to solve” global warming. According to the 1989 article, “A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos.” (LINK) & (LINK)

    While Gore repeats his standard stump speech promoting man-made climate fears, much of the international science community is now openly dissenting from human caused global warming fears.

    Below is a very small sampling of very inconvenient developments for Gore, the United Nations, and the mainstream media. Peer-reviewed studies, analyses, and prominent scientists continue to speak out to refute climate fears. The majority of data presented below is from just the past month or two.

    [Also see: U.S. Senate Minority Report: “Over 400 Prominent Scientists (and rapidly growing) Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007” & An August 2007 report detailed how proponents of man-made global warming fears enjoy a monumental funding advantage over skeptical scientists. LINK ]

    RUSSIAN SCIENTISTS CHALLENGE CLIMATE CHANGE CONSENSUS – Russian scientists ‘reject the very idea that carbon dioxide may be responsible for global warming’ – The Hindu – India’s National Newspaper: July 10, 2008:

    Excerpt: As western nations step up pressure on India and China to curb the emission of greenhouse gases, Russian scientists reject the very idea that carbon dioxide may be responsible for global warming. Russian critics of the Kyoto Protocol, which calls for cuts in CO2 emissions, say that the theory underlying the pact lacks scientific basis. Under the Theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming, it is human-generated greenhouse gases, and mainly CO2, that cause climate change. “The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse,” says renowned Russian geographer Andrei Kapitsa. “It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round.” [...] When four years ago, then President Vladimir Putin was weighing his options on the Kyoto Protocol the Russian Academy of Sciences strongly advised him to reject it as having “no scientific foundation.” (LINK)

    ‘Considerable presence’ of global warming skeptics exist, science group admits – July 16, 2008 – Australian’s The Herald-Sun

    Excerpt: What consensus? The American Physical Society reports: There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution. – So it has opened a debate, kicked off by Christopher Monckton: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) concluded that anthropogenic CO2 emissions probably caused more than half of the “global warming” of the past 50 years and would cause further rapid warming. However, global mean surface temperature has not risen since 1998 and may have fallen since late 2001. The present analysis suggests that the failure of the IPCC’s models to predict this and many other climatic phenomena arises from defects in its evaluation of the three factors whose product is climate sensitivity… More importantly, the conclusion is that, perhaps, there is no “climate crisis”, and that currently-fashionable efforts by governments to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions are pointless, may be ill-conceived, and could even be harmful. (LINK)

    India Issues Report Challenging Global Warming Fears – July 9, 2008

    Excerpt: India issued its National Action Plan on Climate Change in June 2008 disputing man-made global warming fears and declared the country of one billion people had no intention of stopping its energy growth or cutting back its CO2 emissions. […] The report declared: “No firm link between the documented [climate] changes described below and warming due to anthropogenic climate change has yet been established.” (LINK)

    Canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists in 2008 reveals 68% disagree that global warming science is ‘settled’ – March 6, 2008
    Excerpt: A canvass of more than 51,000 scientists with the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta (APEGGA) found 68% of them disagree with the statement that ‘the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled.’” According to the survey, only 26% of scientists attributed global warming to “human activity like burning fossil fuels.” APEGGA’s executive director Neil Windsor said, “We’re not surprised at all. There is no clear consensus of scientists that we know of.” (LINK) & (LINK) [Note: The oft repeated notion of “hundreds” or even “thousands” of scientists affiliated with the UN agreeing to a single “consensus” does not hold up to scrutiny. Out of all the scientists affiliated with the UN, only 52 scientists participated in UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers, which had to adhere to the wishes of the UN political leaders and delegates in a process described as more closely resembling a political party’s convention platform battle, not a scientific process. - LINK & LINK - In addition, the so-called “consensus” statements by scientific groups like the National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, and the American Geophysical Union are only voted on by two dozen or so governing board members with no direct vote cast by rank-and-file scientists - LINK ]

    Team of 13 International Scientists Write Letter To UN Sec. Gen. – IPCC ‘Must be called to account and cease its deceptive practices’ – 14th of July, 2008 (LINK)

    Australian scientist reverses view on man-made warming – Now a Skeptic! Now says ‘new evidence has seriously weakened’ the case – (By Mathematician, Rocket Scientist & Engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the Australian Government) – July 18, 2008 (LINK)

    Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever, Declares Himself Dissenter: ‘I am a skeptic’ – ‘Global warming has become a new religion’ – July 2, 2008 – (LINK)

    Top UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Turns on IPCC. Calls Warming Fears: ‘Worst scientific scandal in the history’ – June 27, 2008 – By Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist who specializes in optical waveguide spectroscopy from the Yokohama National University, also contributed to the 2007 UN IPCC AR4 (fourth assessment report) as an expert reviewer. (LINK)

    New scientific paper shows CO2’s effect on temperature was overstated 500-2000% – Published in Physics and Society journal of the American Physical Society – July 2008 (LINK)

    Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Roy Spencer, formerly of NASA, presented ‘smoking gun’ analysis showing UN IPCC models ‚significantly overstated climate sensitivity to human climate forcings’ – June 17, 2008 – (LINK)

    Four prominent scientists warn ‘global warming out, global cooling in’- ‘Potential for a significant decline in the average mean temperature’ – July 12, 2008 (LINK) & (LINK)

    Arctic ice INCREASES by nearly a half million square miles over same time period in 2007 – July 18, 2008 – (LINK)

    Australian astronomical Society warns of global COOLING as Sun’s activity ‘significantly diminishes’ – June 29, 2008 – (LINK) & (LINK)

    New Study Exposes UN IPCC as ‘single-interest organization’ with echo chamber process – July 15, 2008 – By Climate data analyst John McLean (LINK)

    Atmospheric Scientist Tennekes: ‘Sun may cause some cooling’ – ‘No evidence at all for catastrophic global warming’ – July 14, 2008 (By Atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands’ Royal National Meteorological Institute.) (LINK)

    Atmospheric Physicist James Peden Dissents from man-made CO2 Fears – ‘The so-called Greenhouse Effect is a Myth’ – Peden is formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh and Extranuclear Laboratories in Blawnox, Pennsylvania, studying ion-molecule reactions in the upper atmosphere. (LINK)

    South African Scientist: ‘There is no evidence man-made CO2 causes climate change’ – By Dr. Kelvin Kemm, formerly a scientist at South Africa’s Atomic Energy Corporation. (LINK)

    Climatologist dismisses extreme weather predictions due to man-made warming as ‘complete nonsense’ – By Hydro-climatologist Stewart Franks, an Associate Professor of Environmental Engineering at the University of Newcastle in Australia. (LINK)

    Another scientist dismisses fearmongers: Midwest Floods and ‘Completely Unjustified’ Climate Change Fear Mongering – June 22, 2008 – By Mike Smith is a certified consulting meteorologist and a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society He is CEO of WeatherData Services, Inc., an AccuWeather Company, based in Wichita.) (LINK)

    U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) report shows Hurricanes declining, NO increases in drought, tornados, thunderstorms, heat-waves – June 20, 2008 – (LINK)

    Going Down: Death Rates Due to Extreme Weather Events (LINK)

    Analysis in peer-reviewed journal finds COLD PERIODS – not warm periods – see INCREASE in floods, droughts, storms, famine – April 24, 2008 – (LINK)

    Top Australian Scientist: Why so much climate change talk is hot air – (By William Kininmonth. formerly head of Australia’s National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological Organization. He is author of Climate Change: A Natural Hazard (Multi-science Publishing, 2004) (LINK)

    MIT Scientist Dr. Robert Rose wrote on July 8, 2008, “Cooler heads [are] needed in global warming debate” and linked warming and cooling cycles to the “orbit and the tilt and wobble of the axis of the Earth’s spin.” Rose also questioned climate model predictions by stating, “Clearly, these are not ‘facts.’ They are computer models.” (Rose is a professor of Materials Science and Engineering at MIT with approximately 50 years of experience teaching various scientific disciplines at the graduate and undergraduate levels.) (LINK)

    Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology declared she was skeptical of man-made climate fears – February 27, 2008 – Excerpt: “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly,” Simpson, formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies, wrote in a public letter on February 27. “As a scientist I remain skeptical,” she wrote. Simpson was described by former Colorado State Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr. as “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.” (LINK)

    Veteran UN Climate Scientist Resigns Science Group in Protest: “AN ORCHESTRATED LITANY OF LIES” By UN IPCC Chemist Dr. Vincent Gray (LINK)

    Award-winning Philippines ecologist and evolutionary biologist Dr. Perry Ong declared climate fears were “hyped up.” – May 18, 2008 – Ong is the director of the Institute of Biology at the University of the Philippines’ College of Science.) (LINK)

    International climate declaration tops 1,100 endorsers – Man-made climate fears rejected – June 19, 2008 – (LINK)

    Prominent scientist refutes his own theory, finds warming does not increase hurricanes – July 15, 2008 – Dr. Kerry Emanuel, an MIT professor of atmospheric science (LINK) & (LINK)

    Another prominent hurricane expert reconsiders view: New study says global warming not worsening hurricanes – May 19, 2008 – By Meteorologist Tom Knutson of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s fluid dynamics lab in Princeton, N.J. (LINK)

    UK Scientist Calls Man-Made Warming Fears ‘Dangerous Nonsense of the Age’ – July 17, 2008 – By Biogeography Professor Philip Stott, emeritus of the University of London (LINK)

    Global Warming Has Ended – The Next Climate Change to A Pronounced Cold Era Has Begun – The Space and Science Research Center Issues A Formal Declaration: – July 1, 2008 (LINK)

    U.S Army Chief Scientist Dr. Bruce West Says Sun, Not Man, Is Driving Climate Change – June 3, 2008 – (LINK)

    Oceans Cooling! Scientists puzzled by “mystery of global warming’s missing heat”- March 19, 2008 – (LINK)

    New Data from NASA’s Aqua satellite is showing “greatly reduced future warming projected as a consequence of carbon dioxide.” – March 22, 2008 – (LINK )

    Report: 31,000 + scientists dispute UN’s man-made global warming claims! – May 16, 2008 (LINK)

    New Peer-Reviewed Study Finds Greenland Ice Melt ‘not changing’ or ‘dropping’ – July 4, 2008 – (LINK) & (LINK)

    Peer-reviewed study finds Antarctic fails to warm as climate models predicted – May 7, 2008 – (LINK)

    Media Hype on ‘Melting’ Antarctic Ignores Record Ice Growth – March 27, 2008 – (LINK)

    Arctic ice INCREASES by nearly a half million square miles over same time period in 2007 – July 18, 2008 – (LINK)

    New Peer-Reviewed Study Shows Arctic COOLING Over last 1500 years! – Feb 5, 2008 – Published in Climate Dynamics on 30 January 2008 (LINK)

    Numerous Peer-Reviewed Studies Show Natural Causes of Arctic Warming and Ice Reduction – Jan. 2008 – (LINK)

    New analysis finds Arctic ice reduction may be due to undersea volcanoes – June 26, 2008 – (LINK)

    New Report finds global sea ice GROWING: ‘World sea ice in April 2008 reached levels that were ‘unprecedented’ for the month of April in over 25 years.’ (LINK)

    U.S. Senate Report Debunks Polar Bear Extinction Fears – Jan 30, 2008 – (LINK)

    Top Ivy League Forecasting expert Dr. Scott Armstrong says polar bear models critically flawed – Bear populations increased in recent decades – May 8, 2008 – (LINK)

    Swedish scientists: ‘No concrete global warming proof in polar region’ – June 21, 2008 – (LINK)

    Climate Audit: May Global Sea Ice at ’10th highest on record’ – June 20, 2008 (LINK)

    Study: ‘Absolutely no evidence of warming for all of Antarctica’ – July 1, 2008 – Study conducted by Vesa Laine of the Finnish Meteorological Institute in Helsinki; the work was funded by the Academy of Finland and the Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation (LINK)

    Global warming may not affect sea levels, study finds – Jan 11, 2008 – (LINK)

    After being stripped of his title, skeptical Oregon state climatologist George Taylor steps aside – Feb 22, 2008 – (LINK) [ See also July 2007 comprehensive report detailing how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation - LINK ]

    Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Roy Spencer, formerly of NASA, found not one peer-reviewed paper has ‘ruled out a natural cause for most of our recent warmth’ – March 20, 2008 – (LINK)

    UN IPCC in ‘Panic Mode’ as Earth Fails to Warm, Scientist Paleoclimatologist Dr. Bob Carter says – March 25, 2008 – (LINK )

    UN IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri “to look into the apparent temperature plateau so far this century.” – January 24, 2008 – (LINK)

    Canadian Climatologist Dr. Timothy Ball: CO2 from human or natural sources is not causing global warming – June 23, 2008 – (LINK)

    New scientific analysis shows Sun “could account for as much as 69% of the increase in Earth’s average temperature”- March 2008 – (LINK) & (LINK)

    Scientists find dust free atmosphere may be responsible for up to .36 F rise in global temps – March 3, 2008 – (LINK)

    New York Times Laments Media’s incorrect hyping of frogs and global warming – March 24, 2008 – (LINK)

    MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen’s March 2008 presentation of data from the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office found the Earth has had “no statistically significant warming since 1995.”- (LINK)

    An International team of scientists released a March 2008 report to counter UN IPCC, declaring: “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate” (LINK)

    Emitting MORE CO2 may ‘be good for life on Earth’, says atmospheric scientist Dr. Roy Spencer, formerly of NASA in May 2008. (LINK)

    Former Colorado State Climatologist Pielke Sr. Rails Against Abuse of the scientific method’ in global warming study (LINK)

    Sun in deep slumber: 10.7 solar flux hits record low value – July 16, 2008 – By Meteorologist Anthony Watts (LINK)

    Science Daily: Scientists not sure why Sun ‘continues to be dead’ – June 9, 2008 (LINK)

    Climate models fail again! Scientist ‘startled’ to discover 50% of ozone destroyed in lower atmosphere – June 26, 2008 – (LINK)

    Report: In praise of CO2: Earth ‘is the greenest it’s been in decades, perhaps in centuries’ – June 7, 2008 – (LINK)

    ‘Global Warming Will Stop,’ New Peer-Reviewed Study Says – Global Warming Takes a Break for Nearly 20 Years? – April 2008 – (LINK)

    Cooling Underway: Global Temperature Continues to Drop in May – ‘Significantly Colder’ – 16-month temperature drop of -0.774°C! (LINK)

    Earth’s ‘Fever’ Breaks: Global COOLING Currently Under Way – February 27, 2008 – (LINK)

    Alaska sees ‘longest stretch of no-nineties in the Alaska climate record, since 1904’ – June 25, 2008 – By Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks (LINK)

    Chill out: Alaskan faces ‘cool gloomy’ summer – July 17, 2008 – (LINK)

    Peru declares state of emergency due to record-breaking cold spell – 61 children die – June 19, 2008 – (LINK)

    Why have the oceans been cooling for 5 years? – July 2008 (LINK)

    Delaware: ‘Unheard of’ Cold ocean temperatures in July slow fishing – July 16, 2008 – (LINK)

    Meteorologist: ‘It’s mid-summer and Lake Superior is still chilly’ – July 15 , 2008 – By Meteorologist Karl Bohnak of Michigan’s TV6 and holds the American Meteorological Society’s broadcast seal of approval) (LINK)

    Geophysicist calls man-made climate fears ‘a fraud’ and ‘hysterical scare tactic’ – June 29, 2008 – (By Dr. David Deming is a geophysicist and associate professor of arts and sciences at the University of Oklahoma who has published peer-reviewed climate studies) (LINK)

    U.S. Scientists Sign Document Refuting Man-made Climate fears – “Prominent Americans among those demanding an end to climate hysteria” – June 27, 2008 – (LINK)

    Climate Audit’s Steve McIntyre: IPCC ‘claimed to have destroyed all their working documents’ – Violates ‘objective, open and transparent’ process! – June 20, 2008 (LINK)

    Report: Nature may soon cool climate debate as ‘fairly cold period’ set to begin – June 18, 2008 – (LINK)

    Meteorologist says Man-Made Global Warming Movement ‘Rapidly Running Out of Gas’ In past year – June 17, 2008 – (By Award winning Chief Meteorologist James Spann of Alabama ABC TV) (LINK) & (LINK)

    NASA Aerospace Engineer Rejects Man-Made Climate fears (By Dirck T. Hartmann, who worked on the Apollo Space Program and many other significant NASA projects. Hartmann is a scientist/ aerospace engineer/physicist) (LINK)

    How cold is it getting? Harsh winters force Mongolian horsemen to abandon nomadic life (LINK)

    Somaliland resident in Africa: Global warming hysteria, ‘more to do with Europe’s prosperous middle class politics than Science’ (LINK)

    Another Dissenter: ‘There is only 1/19 as much CO2 in the air today as there was 520 million years’ – By Geologist/Earth Scientist Greg Benson: – July 15, 2008 – Benson is an earth scientist with 30 years of geologic study and currently works as a research specialist in geologic modeling. (LINK)

    New study finds cleaner skies ‘contributing to at least half the warming that has occurred’ – July 9, 2008 From New Scientist (LINK)

    UN Scientist Debunks Warming Fears: ‘No correlation between the anthropogenic emissions of GHGs and global temperature’ – By IPCC Reviewer and climate consultant Richard Courtney – (LINK)

    “No ‘greenhouse’ gas other than water has ever influenced the global climate perceptibly” By Chemical Scientist Dr. Brian G. Valentine, professor at University of Maryland (LINK)

    UK scientist Dissents: ‘More proof that global warming is natural’ – June 26, 2008 (By Botanist Dr. David Bellamy) – (LINK)

    00

  • #
    Crakar24

    Sorry 5.3 was addressed to Kevin in 5.

    To Overseasinsider,

    If you wish to hear them rebut you will need to take your foot off their throat, personally i am enjoying the peace and quiet.

    00

    • #

      Crakar24,
      I’ve noticed this also.

      Where are those guys who are usually resident here?

      Is there no one who will defend Durban?

      I’m beginning to sense a trend that maybe, just maybe, the wheels are finally beginning to fall off CAGW, and it’s going to be a long way back to undo the damage.

      Those who started all this in the dim long ago past neglected on thing, and that one thing may indeed have been fortuitous. (lucky too!)

      The Blogosphere.

      Without that, the media (and dare I say gullibly) just fell in line, because it’s been the blogosphere (so often discredited) that may, just may, be turning the tide.

      Imagine if you will, nailing your colours to the mast, and then watch as it all falls away.

      Their silence says more than their comments ever did.

      Tony.

      00

      • #
        brc

        They also forget about the weather.

        It’s been making fools of witchdoctors, sharmans and soothsayers for a millenia.

        I suspect if there really is a greater power in control of the weather he/she/it has a very wicked sense of humor and is someone/thing I very much would like to share a beer with.

        00

      • #
        Streetcred

        … they’re away at a conference to get a consensus on what to say about Durban COP17. It is, you understand, quite an embarrassment for them and they’re not allowed to have an individual viewpoint anyhow.

        00

  • #
    Grumpy Old Man

    Geoff. good article. Why not call a spade a shovel? The document is not communist, it is socialist ,and bought into by the left-wing “common purpose” elite the world over.

    00

  • #
    Geoff Sherrington

    Peter Lang,
    Thank you. Do you perchance know of some slides that Barry Brook used in a lecture broadcast on ABC about midnight to 1 am last weekend, discussing nuclear? There was one slide showing its progression in 25 years or so in France, another the growth of alt energy in Denmark. Given your prowess in pricing, do you know if there were prices attached for these different ways of producing electricity/energy? I had to turn the sound down as my wife was sleeping.

    brc – this was written before I heard that Canada had pulled out – my apologies.

    00

    • #
      brc

      Don’t worry about taking me too seriously, I doubt anyone else does.

      It’s a vital analysis and it’s probably wrong to look the other way thinking that they are on the run, because they have all based their livelihoods on this particular thing, and aren’t above changing the rules while everyone is looking the other way.

      So while I think they are a toothless tiger in many ways, they’re also looking at a myriad of ways to gain those teeth. So far they have largely failed but if Durban tells us anything, they’re not going to give up in the next decade.

      It’s so true that the debate has moved beyond the science. Because even if you believe the so-called ‘consensus science’ Kyoto and it’s other mutations are still a bad idea because they essentially achieve nothing at great cost.

      I just hope Canada is the first of many countries to walk away. It only takes 2 or 3 of the G8 to say ‘you know what? We’re not taking your moral blackmail anymore’ and things will really turn around.

      00

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        I agree totally.

        In fact, I am having to put up with, “Yea, we did it first”, comments from our Canadian “colleagues”.

        But we are going to have to sit right through the EU meltdown sitcom first. While the Merkosy still have some credibility, the charade will continue. If the Euro collapses, and if the EU splinters as a result, then the climate scam will find itself on shaky ground. The whole thing relies on “willing” donor nations. When those nations become less willing, there is nothing left but talk.

        It will be interesting to see what sanctions, if any, the UN applies to Canada to punish their withdrawal. Just how many teeth does the UN actually have, and how sharp are they?

        Life is interesting again!

        00

        • #
          Owen Morgan

          The scary thing about the climate scam for Europe is that eu is showing no sign of accepting the scam for what it has always been. We can bet that the usual suspects are – ahem – lobbying hard to ensure that there is no flagging in commitment to the faith. There is, presumably, some directorate in Brussels which is existentially bound to the continuation of the scam. The european parliament, most members of which appear not to have visited Planet Earth any time recently, has always been foremost in dreaming up ludicrous eco-burdens for the people and businesses of the subject nations.

          The current Merkozy plan “Z” to save the euro involves making huge budget cuts, with the national budget plans to be inspected by eu (i.e. German) inspectors. This has already happened to the Republic of Ireland; Berlin got sight of Fine Gael’s spending plans well before Dublin did. Leaving aside, as OT, the fact that the budget deficit is contributory to the economic woes only really of Greece in the euro-bloc, I envisage that the exaggerated spending and costs “inspired” by eco-lunacy will be ring-fenced. Thus, just as the affected countries struggle to gain economic competitiveness, with no help from Angela Merkel, they will continue to be hamstrung by some of the most idiotic regulations and policy objectives known to man.

          Even though we in the UK escaped the euro, we are “committed” (appropriate term) to eye-watering reductions in “carbon” emissions, thanks to a bit of madness by Tony Blair, back in the Middle Gordonian period. We face the prospect of cripplingly expensive energy costs from so-called renewables, or the expectation of black-outs – probably, in fact, both. Unless the eu sees sense (what are the chances?) or (please, please, please) the whole rotten edifice collapses, massively expensive power-cuts could be the fate of many people in Europe, from Latvia to Lisbon.

          00

    • #
      Peter Lang

      Geoff,

      I do not know the slides you are referring to. I am not clear on the question you are asking. This may help:

      1. France has near the lowest cost electricity in Europe (average wholesale price)

      2. France’s CO2 emissions from electricity generation are about 10% of Australia’s

      3. France generates 76% of its electricity from nuclear (Australia generates 76% of its electricity from coal)

      4. France commissioned its fleet of nuclear plants over a period of about 20 years

      5. France has about twice as much nuclear capacity as Australia’s coal capacity – therefore we could easily build a fleet of nuclear power stations to supply our current demand in 20 years if we wanted to (and if it made economic sense to do so)

      6. According to the recent Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) report commissioned by the Australian Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism (DRET), electricity from a new nuclear power plant would cost more than twice as much as from new coal power stations. The terms of reference for this study were defined by a government that does not want nuclear. Other government departments that have used the data from the report (such as Treasury) have excluded the nuclear figures from their reports.

      00

    • #
      Gnome

      That’s the same Barry Brook who bemoans (on their ABC) the fact that there is only one scientist elected to parliament as a reason why global warming isn’t taken sufficiently seriously by the unwashed, but fails to point out that the only scientist in parliament is a global warming sceptic.

      Ignore him. He lies by omission.

      00

  • #
    Crakar24

    Well Tony there is still a little bit of wriggle room for them on the science but when it comes to the wild claims of conspiracy theories i think that door has been well and truly slammed shut.

    If any of them can still claim that this is not a scam of the grandest proportions, a scam so insidious that it will have an impact on the lives of everyone on the planet through the control and rationing of electricity then they must be one of the scammers.

    If anyone was to believe the UN and co are acting to save the planet they must be as dumb as a box of hammers and no one here IMHO is that dumb.

    00

    • #

      Most here are so dumb that when facts don’t fit a theory the facts are ignored. I was flabbergasted when one of the resident nutters here said the Barry Brooks site was “anti-science” where some skeptic site frequently caught out making errors of fact was called a “real scientific site!”

      I will leave you to your fairy tales—the world is COOLING!

      Oh, one inconvenient question—what happens when the sun leaves its present quiescent state and becomes more active and the amount of radiation hits our ever-increasingly high in CO2 atmosphere? 50°C summer temps? In Tassie?

      00

      • #
        Reed Coray

        Maxine poor Maxine. You’ve forgotten the message: “The sun’s impact on global climate change is negligible.” For pennance you have to spend two hours in the penalty box, and write the message 100 times.

        00

        • #
          Cookster

          Well said Reed. Maxine, the IPCC keeps saying we need to limit warming to 2C. How can that that be guaranteed though abatement of human CO2 if the sun has a significant influence as you have just admitted? By the way arrogance and exaggeration is one reason why global support for action on CO2 is waning, I suggest you cut the ’50°C summer temps In Tassie’ claims.

          00

      • #

        Oh, one inconvenient question—what happens when the sun leaves its present quiescent state and becomes more active and the amount of radiation hits our ever-increasingly high in CO2 atmosphere? 50°C summer temps? In Tassie?

        It’s odd that you would ask us sceptics that question Maxine.

        Afteral, the science is settled. Those scientists who’ve toiled honestly for over 20 years MUST KNOW WHAT HAPPENS due to your scenario.

        Assuming you’ve studied well enough what these experts are saying, why don’t you answer your own question and tell us, TELL ALL OF US what happens when the sun leaves its present quiescent state and becomes more active and the amount of radiation hits our ever-increasingly high in CO2 atmosphere? Will temps hit 50°C Max? Perhaps even in Tassie?

        Be as detailed and precise as you possibly can be.

        00

  • #
    Gary Mount

    I clicked on the star rating icons expecting some kind of prompt so I could rate this a 10, but I didn’t know clicking it was all that was needed and inadvertantly gave it a 5 or so. Sorry. Important to get this kind of analysis out to a wide audience.
    Did anyone mention yet that “mitigation” is repeated in the list of word frequency?

    00

  • #
    • #

      Hey look over there. Isn’t that (insert celebrity name here)

      Tony

      00

    • #
      memoryvault

      Meanwhile, back in the real world:

      CO2 continues to go up, but
      temperatures continue to drop,
      the snow keeps getting deeper,
      sea level rises stop, while
      people are made homeless and/or are murdered to create carbon credits,
      pensioners freeze in ever greater numbers due to “sustainable” power subsidies,
      millions of people face starvation because of biofuels, and
      deaths from preventable malaria top 40 million as a result of the ban on DDT.

      .
      Must make you feel all warm and goose-bumpy, eh Maxine?

      00

      • #

        Temperatures continue to drop? So 2011 was third coldest, not third hottest, year? Not confusing variability due to La Nina, are you?

        Plimer talks crap, takes contradictory stances even on the same page!

        00

        • #
          BobC

          Maxine
          December 14, 2011 at 10:15 pm · Reply
          Temperatures continue to drop? So 2011 was third coldest, not third hottest, year? Not confusing variability due to La Nina, are you?

          No, Maxine; What you’re confusing is the difference between rate and magnitude.

          When you pass over the top of a hill and start down the other side, you are descending — getting lower with every step forward. You are still, however, near the top of the hill — you are not at the bottom of the valley.

          00

        • #
          brc

          And yet Ian Plimer wasn’t mentioned at all in this blog post. You are horribly off-topic.

          Is this the same Maxine who sincerely believes the government doesn’t have a bank account? Back again for some more?

          Why don’t you stay on-topic and reflect on what really happened at Durban?

          00

          • #

            I’m sure Ian Plimer will be devastated that he is receiving bad critique from the savant Maxine.

            Been invited to Ian’s book launch in Brisbane tonight, also an end of year celebration for the IPA members…the sceptics’ ball!

            Should be a hoot as we will discuss the next move. I’m in favour of lobbying the coalition to go “Canadian”.

            00

        • #
          Cyril of Gladstone

          Perhaps you can give us an example of these contradictory stances that you talk about. Seeing how the book has just been released, you must have been so keen on reading it that you rushed out and bought a copy straight away?

          00

    • #
      Juliar

      A very well edited comparison of what he has said.

      00

  • #
    Geoff Sherrington

    Gary Mount – mitigation twice. An understandable error because it has more than 3 syllables. The word that was meant to be there is “annex” (169). (Two syllables)

    00

  • #
  • #
    cohenite

    The Durban document has no legal force internationally or otherwise. As Geoff’s analysis demonstrates its worth is the insight it provides into the motivations and intentions of its authors.

    Here in Australia the duplicity has begun with Combet’s declarations of success and endorsement of the proposed 25% cut in CO2 by 2020; this is to be compared with the 5% cut under the idiotic current CO2 tax.

    This statement by Combet serves 2 purposes; firstly it keeps the greens on song and provides the usual softening up process of the general public; the usual suspects in the msm have lapped it up while the true import of a 25% cut in CO2 – complete economic devastation – is largely ignored.

    00

  • #
    Peter Miller

    Bureaucracies are like cancers, all they do is grow. They sap the strength of their host and eventually can kill their host.

    I suspect only a few of the Durban attendees have read this document, even fewer understand it, and even less understand its consequences, namely an incredible opportunity for waste, nepotism, croneyism, corruption and damage to the global economy.

    The benefits? Absolutely zip, unless you count huge amounts of funds going into the pockets of the least deserving and you are a fan of the least deserving.

    00

    • #
      Lionell Griffith

      But “waste, nepotism, croneyism, corruption and damage to the global economy” is exactly what they are after.

      If you repeatedly enact a cause that begets the same results, it is the results you are after. All the pretty words to the contrary used to justify it are just a smoke screen to cover the real motivation.

      00

  • #
    Rick Bradford

    Hard to believe, but the loony-left UK Guardian had this to say in an editorial about the fall-out from Durban and Comrade Gillard’s policies. (ACM alerted me to this)

    Bold unilateral moves like the Australian carbon tax, due to take effect from July next year, now look like a trip to the moral high ground at the expense of international competitiveness.

    00

  • #

    Piers Corbyn

    The end is nigh for CO2 warmism. “It’s delusional nonsense founded on fraud”

    http://www.weatheraction.com/displayarticle.asp?a=406&c=5

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXNFl6Ft5Hk&feature=share

    You Australians need to grasp the momentum and get rid of Old Mother Gizzard and her loony policies.

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Piers,

    Antipodeans of Anglo-Saxon origin might have difficulties, but you know this :-)

    Myself, otherwise.

    00

  • #
    rukidding

    Ten years ago if you had said to me that we would be talking about handing over our sovereignty to the or that we would be talking about a climate criminal court or that we would be taxing the air we breath then I would have suspected you were crazy but no more.
    For a template we have to look no further than the EU and instead of one or two bludger countries like Greece we will have at least 154.
    And if you think that they can not make a climate criminal court we already have an international court of justice which is banging up leaders of sovereign countries what would be the difference if countries had broken some environmental law.
    For those that think the UN has no teeth just look at how we have to take in illegal boat people instead of saying they are invading our territory and blowing them out of the water.
    And what do we hear from our liberal party on what Combet is giving away, from what I can see next to nothing.
    Don’t know about leaving our grand kids a hotter world what we won’t be leaving them is a world with the freedoms we have enjoyed.
    I have never been one for nuclear arms but after this crap out of Durban I think we need to start arming our selves.A hundred nuclear missiles just incase these mad greenies think we a an easy push over.

    00

  • #
    Tristan

    A list of word search hits. Telling!

    Those heartless monsters didn’t include the word clothing in the document. Shame on them.

    00

    • #

      Tristan,

      okay, you have the floor, so you tell us what came out of Durban, and how it will work.

      I’m afraid your one liner doesn’t quite cut it.

      Tony.

      00

    • #
      Tristan

      What came out of Durban? Two main things.

      1) An unspecified legally binding deal to be in place by 2020. At the moment it sounds like more of the same old equivocation. Maybe by 2013 there’ll be enough information to have an opinion on.

      2) A ‘$100Bn/yr fund to help poor countries adapt to CC’. Sounds great but I’m reserving my judgement for the reality of the deal. How much of this money ends up in the hands of Monsanto and the other food barons? Will the approach be one of integration with existing cultural, social and economic practices or will it be some UN dictate?

      Pretty uninspiring but it was about all I expected.

      00

      • #
        Cyril of Gladstone

        Nice bit of class warfare language there tristan. Food Barons, what next Motor vehicle Barons, Maybe electricity barons. I would suggest that most of this money will end up in the pockets of UN bureaucrats and the bank accounts of third world dictators.

        00

    • #
      Tristan

      If less than 50% of the $100Bn/yr is wasted* I’ll be happy.

      I’d like the money spent on food and water security, disaster mitigation systems, small-scale low-tech, low-cost energy solutions and nuclear power infrastructure.

      *spent doing things that obviously don’t comply with any sort of reasonable C:BA.

      00

      • #
        Winston

        If less than 50% of the $100Bn/yr is wasted* I’ll be happy.

        If less than 50% is wasted it will be a miracle, more like it. You must have a lot more faith in the UN and our various governments than I do, because I know “in my heart” that very little if any of that money will end up in the hands of the people you would like to believe it is directed to. Most will end up in various UN officials’, African government minister’s, Bankers’ and consultants’ and lawyers’ various Swiss and Cayman Islands bank accounts, and nary a trickle of it will ever compensate the poor citizen ploughing the field or the native chased out of his rainforest in Sth America somewhere (like you would no doubt hope it would), to compensate him for failing to ascend the ladder of progress that the rest of us have taken for granted.

        Tell me one thing that puzzles me Tristan- Why does a seemingly intelligent fellow like you assume that those who govern us are not ripping us off blind with these ETS/carbon tax initiatives. And why do you so blindly believe that ANY of this money will ever end up in the hands of anyone who remotely might deserve it, without any detail ever having been given as to exactly how that could be achieved? I think I would call that “faith”, wouldn’t you? And we all know what forms of pursuit requires such “faith” don’t we- they call it a “religion” don’t they!

        00

  • #
    Joe's World

    Jo,

    Nice to live in Canada with a Prime Minister that at least surfs the net and stays informed on the issue of “settled science”.

    Get you check books ready boys, the UN is coming to town!

    00

  • #
    klem

    This type of document is part of the reason why CAGW and CACC have done tremedous damage to the environemtal movement over the past several years. Deep down we’re all environemtalists to some degree, we all want clean air and water, but using CO2 as an excuse to control nations is intolerable and will set the environmental movment back decades.

    As it is, both of my children and most of their friends now reject environmetalism outright, because of the constant barrage of green talk from their teachers and being forced to watch Gore’s propaganda movie ‘An Incon Truth’. Many children will not be filling the ranks of the environmental movement in coming years. I’ve been an environemtalist since 1970, and I’ve never seen anything like this. Losing a generation of kids is not good.

    00

    • #
      Lionell Griffith

      The foundation of environmentalism was a fraud from the get go. It presumed that man was not part of nature and therefore ANYTHING man did to change nature was evil. Nature was an end in and of itself. Man was to sacrifice himself in order to save Nature. Man had no right to exist.

      All of the rest of living things must accommodate and adapt whatever Nature presents to it or die. Man, on the other hand, can change Nature to suit HIS purposes. He can do that because he has the power of reason. THIS is what the environmentalists object to. They object to man using reason to continue to live and thrive. They also object to the fact that they themselves must also do the same. In other words, they object to being Human with the identity of a Human.

      How do I know this? I pointed it out in 15.1 above:

      If you repeatedly enact a cause that begets the same results, it is the results you are after. All the pretty words to the contrary used to justify it are just a smoke screen to cover the real motivation.

      00

      • #
        Reed Coray

        Lionell, I agree. According to http://homepage.eircom.net/~odyssey/Quotes/Popular/SciFi/Heinlein.html, science fiction writer Robert Heinlein in his book Time Enough for Love wrote: There are hidden contradictions in the minds of people who “love Nature” while deploring the “artificialities” with which “Man has spoiled `Nature.’” The obvious contradiction lies in their choice of words, which imply that Man and his artifacts are not part of “Nature” : but beavers and their dams are. I’m for mankind’s building more dams, and just to make beavers envious, building more nuclear power plants, building more coal power plants, drilling for more oil, etc.

        00

        • #
          NicG.

          Hi Reed.

          While I agree whole-heartedly with what you say, one needs to mitigate against the true destroyers of the environnment. This is why I only partially agree with Lionell at 22.1. True environmentalism is not a complete fraud. (unless I’m misunderstanding the term environmentalism).

          Humanity has the capability to control the environment and should do so for the benefit of all. The Earth is our home to be managed properly, not a museum piece to be wrapped in cotton-wool. What must not be allowed is polluting and despoiling the environment unnecessarily. That just hands the eco-nutters a big stick to beat us with.

          Cheers
          NicG.

          00

          • #
            Reed Coray

            Hi NicG.

            If by “all” you mean “all mankind” then I agree that man should at least try “to control the environment and should do so for the benefit of all.” Furthermore, mankind should not wantonly destroy any part of environment. However, almost any change to the environment instigated by mankind means a negative change to some of the Earth’s occupants (plants and animals included) and a positive change to other occupants. I place human occupants above the sum of all animal and plant occupants. I know it sounds mean-spirited, deplorable and downright despicable, but I really only care about plants and animals to the degree they affect mankind. I’ll give you two examples. First, although I’m not looking to harm polar bears, I’m also not interested in expending any of my assets to ensure they are around when the sun becomes a red giant. If others want to spend their assets for that purpose, that’s fine with me–but before you ask me to contribute, you must show me why such action is a real, not esoteric, benefit to mankind. Otherwise I’ll let nature and mankind muddle along without losing sleep over what happens to polar bears. The best argument I can think of for spending assets to protect polar bears has nothing to do with polar bears per se, but rather goes along the line that mankind’s actions that end up protecting polar bears also benefit mankind. If such an argument can be made, then I’m all for implementing those actions–not, however, to save polar bears, but rather to help mankind. Second, if it’s mankind’s moral responsibility to avoid abetting the extinction of existing life forms, then why doesn’t that responsibility apply to the smallpox virus? Aren’t we actively trying to eradicate smallpox from the face of the Earth? As I understand it, smallpox is a life form; and by attempting to make it extinct, we are adversely affecting the environment because we are giving freer reign to the world’s worst polluter–mankind according to many environmentalists. If through no action of mankind all polar bears magically disappeared from the Earth, I believe the net impact to the environment would be less than the eradication of smallpox and other diseases. If true, then by the measure of “largest environmental impact”, we should cease all efforts to eradicate diseases. At least that’s the logical (not emotional) conclusion I come to.

            00

          • #
            NicG.

            Hi Reed.

            I think we’re singing from the same hymn sheet on this subject. The world’s resources are there for us, as the dominant species, to use as we see fit.

            If polar bears were the dominant species and we were their staple food, I’m sure they’d be farming us!

            And, as with smallpox, so also with the Tse-Tse fly.

            (This would have been a ‘reply’ but you’re on the end of the chain).

            Cheers
            NicG.

            00

      • #
        Robert

        Historians in general define “civilization” as “a societies ability to modify their environment.” Viewing such things as creation of irrigation works, building of shelters, turning towards agriculture, etc. as points in which an ancient society became civilized.

        So one could say that radical environmentalism would prefer we were not civilized. Judging by the behavior of some of their activists they certainly aren’t attempting to be…

        00

        • #
          Kevin Moore

          Civilisations have many systems – sewerage systems, legal systems etc. Environmentalists are endeavouring to clog the systems up.

          00

    • #
      Tristan

      Lionell, the foundations of environmentalism are laid by Thoreau’s book ‘Walden’. It doesn’t presume anything you claim, Thoreau’s values include those of self-sufficiency, non-conformity and limited governance. For him, a natural setting was a means to step outside ‘modern life’ and spend time in contemplation.

      Furthermore, you have the radical environmentalist perspective ass-backwards. They promote the idea that humanity is merely part of nature and should acknowledge that as much as possible, as opposed to the biblical position of separation between humans and the rest of life.

      There is no objection to reason, logic, living or thriving. The radical environmentalist considers sustainable lifestyles, conservation and recognition of humanity’s place in nature to be the very pinnacle of thriving, and reason and logic are the tools with which humans can achieve that.

      00

      • #
        Winston

        So, that is why most environmentalists are such conformists? They all sing from the same hymn sheet, a mantra they all chant in monotone over and over to convince themselves of their righteousness. They do NOT tolerate dissent from the paradigm, as evidenced by their attitude to anyone who dares to suggest that CAGW is inconsistent with the observations in the real world, which clearly it is. So, your theory about radical environmentalism doesn’t hold much water.

        00

      • #
        Winston

        As for limited governance, never have I seen greater champions for MASSIVE government and a web of excessive regulations of every facet of life, than those championed by the green movement. Such hypocrisy!

        00

      • #
        cohenite

        The radical environmentalist considers sustainable lifestyles, conservation and recognition of humanity’s place in nature to be the very pinnacle of thriving

        What a load of crap; from what I can see of ‘sustainable’ lifestyles: selective diets including veganism, highly inefficient energy sources, elaborate building materials and styles, computers and sophistocated communication devices etc, is that they are highly unnatural and even decadent, and could not be sustained without the usual fossil and nuclear fuels.

        The “radical environmentalist” is a hypocrite and a menace.

        00

      • #
        KeithH

        Tristan.

        The idealistic environmentalist movement has been hijacked by those seeking the imposition of global governance and by those financiers and organisations who could see the tremendous opportunity for wealth accumulation. Extreme radical environmentalists have also taken the opportunity to push their anti-human program under the emotive banner of “saving the planet”. This is not a conspiracy theory but a fact of life, as the many proponents of all sides (apart from the financial carpet-baggers) have been quite open about their aims.

        Some examples follow:

        “We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of acres of presently settled land.”
        - David Foreman,
        co-founder of Earth First!

        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
        “My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species,returning throughout the world.”
        -Dave Foreman,
        co-founder of Earth First!

        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
        “Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs.”
        - John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
        “Humans on the Earth behave in some ways like a pathogenic micro-organism, or like the cells of a tumor.”
        - Sir James Lovelock,
        Healing Gaia

        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
        “The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.”
        - Club of Rome,
        Mankind at the Turning Point

        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
        “A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people.
        We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions.”
        - Prof Paul Ehrlich,
        The Population Bomb

        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
        “I don’t claim to have any special interest in natural history, but as a boy I was made aware of the annual fluctuations in the number of game animals and the need to adjust the cull to the size of the surplus population.”
        - Prince Philip,
        preface of Down to Earth

        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
        “A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard
        of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible.”
        - United Nations,
        Global Biodiversity Assessment

        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
        “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
        - Ted Turner,
        founder of CNN and major UN donor

        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
        “… the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million but less than one billion.”
        - Club of Rome,
        Goals for Mankind

        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
        “One America burdens the earth much more than twenty Bangladeshes. This is a terrible thing to say.
        In order to stabilize world population,we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it’s just as bad not to say it.”
        - Jacques Cousteau,
        UNESCO Courier

        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
        “If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
        - Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh,
        patron of the World Wildlife Fund

        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
        “I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.”
        - John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
        “The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing.”
        - Christopher Manes, Earth First!

        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
        “The extinction of Homo Sapiens would mean survival for millions, if not billions, of Earth-dwelling species.
        Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on Earth – social and environmental.”
        - Ingrid Newkirk,
        former President of PETA

        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
        “Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use ontraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”
        - David Brower,
        first Executive Director of the Sierra Club

        Examples of how environmentalism was “hijacked”.
        “The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
        with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
        The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
        - Club of Rome,
        premier environmental think-tank,
        consultants to the United Nations

        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

        “We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination…
        So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements
        and make little mention of any doubts…
        Each of us has to decide what the right balance s between being effective and being honest.”
        - Prof. Stephen Schneider,
        Stanford Professor of Climatology,
        lead author of many IPCC reports

        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

        “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
        we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
        - Timothy Wirth,
        President of the UN Foundation

        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

        “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
        - Christine Stewart,
        former Canadian Minister of the Environment

        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

        “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
        - Prof. Chris Folland,
        Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

        “The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.”
        - Dr David Frame,
        climate modeler, Oxford University

        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

        “I believe it is appropriate to have an ‘over-representation’ of the facts on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience.”
        - Al Gore,
        Climate Change activist

        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

        “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
        - Paul Watson,
        co-founder of Greenpeace

        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

        “The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”
        - emeritus professor Daniel Botkin

        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

        “We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis…”
        - David Rockefeller,
        Club of Rome executive member

        For those who are searching for truth about the AGW debate, more quotes and references are available at http://green-agenda.com/

        Gather all the facts from the various sites available and make up your own minds.

        00

        • #
          Lionell Griffith

          The environmentalist movement was not highjacked by those people, it spawned them, fed them, taught them, and then set them free. Sort of a modern day Pandora’s Box. All your quotes were implicit in the initial screed. It is derived from the feeling that the product of man’s mind is evil and must not be tolerated. The closer to nature you get the better (aka. dead).

          A fraud is something that is pretended to be something it is not. As I said, environmentalism was a fraud from the get go. It was not even close to a rational “Waste not, want not.”, “A stitch in time, saves nine.” etc.

          00

      • #
        Tristan

        Zero substantive rebuttal. As usual. Can’t expect anything else from a bunch of ideologues.

        00

        • #
          cohenite

          You are full of crap Tristan; Thoreau use to go home every evening to his mum’s for some apple pie and went to town regularly for take-a-way; some environmentalist. If you and the rest of the ‘sustainables’ want to sustain yourselves naturally take off your gear and trudge around the Simpson desert for a year; and then come back and tell us how you went; or don’t come back, as the case may be.

          00

        • #
          Kevin Moore

          “Zero substantive rebuttal”?

          Zero – Nothing

          Substantive – Depending on itself

          Rebuttal – To repel by counter evidence

          - It doesn’t appear that way to me.

          00

          • #
            Robert

            Tristan has a reading disorder, it is fairly common among the supporters of the (what DO they call it now?) catastrophic climate something or other meme…

            00

        • #
          Winston

          Zero substantive rebuttal.

          Okay……….

          Thoreau’s values include those of self-sufficiency, non-conformity and limited governance.

          Non-conformity- I pointed out environmentalists, as evidenced by “climate change” alarmists from the IPCC to NGO’s like Greenpeace ( who have been shown to have great input into IPCC policy, unsurprisingly) going out of their way to suppress dissent- eg “Denier” tag, Attempting to Ad Hom with Big Oil or Big tobacco slurs (including our host), Miskolczi’s paper suppressed, etc, etc- I believe that rebuttal is certainly substantive enough.

          Limited governance- The massive regulatory “governance” already apparent in every level of society from local councils (as previous threads on this site have already attested as you well know) to state and federal government departments donated solely to the pointless task of mitigating against possible climate contingencies based on a theory and modelling that has been shown to have little or no predictive accuracy.- substantive rebuttal also.

          Then Cohenite skewered the self sufficiency myth well and truly with his comment above-

          Thoreau use to go home every evening to his mum’s for some apple pie and went to town regularly for take-a-way; some environmentalist.

          That makes 3/3 rebuttals, substantive enough to show up environmentalism and the great gulf between that to which they allegedly aspire, and the actual actions they undertake, and the repercussions of their creed which are far beyond the weasel words they mouth to hide their true agenda.

          As to the “ideologues” ad hominem to those herein, I think that term best describes someone who sticks blindly to their beliefs in the face of evidence to the contrary. As outlined above, and in many examples in our conversations in the past, I believe that particular identikit would best fit you, Tristan, since you steadfastly refused above to acknowledge that whatever beliefs Thoreau and his disciples might aspire to, the practical result of the machinations of these very people is totally contrary to his alleged principles. So, the hypocrisy ad hominem would appear to be most apt on this occasion.

          00

        • #
          Tristan

          tl;dr keep up the jibber-jabber

          00

      • #
        wes george

        you have the radical environmentalist perspective ass-backwards. They promote the idea that humanity is merely part of nature and should acknowledge that as much as possible, as opposed to the biblical position of separation between humans and the rest of life.

        No Tristan you got it ass backwards. Environmentalists believe anything humans do is an unnatural alteration to the environment. They might make poetry about humanity’s oneness with nature, but what they imagine is the Garden of Eden with Rousseau’s Noble Savage long before “the fall” caused by the scientific Enlightenment and subsequent progress of the modern age, democracy, capitalism and industrialisation.

        Deep Green Environmentalism is a reactionary millenarian movement. Greens oppose human progress, especially technologically-induced progress, based on their prophecies of an ecological End Times, which predict every dam, every new technology, every development is one more sign the End is Nigh!

        Reactionary eco-philosophy is classically millenarian because most eco-prophets believe that the eco-apocalypse is a necessary stage of civilisational development now. We’ve already past the point of no return. the “good news” is that once humans destroy civilisation, the planet will recover for a new golden age of peace, climate-justice and prosperity where human survivors will have learned to live within our means.

        Because this eco-millenarian narrative is basically the same pattern that Karl Marx predicted for capitalism, socialists, anarchist and comrades of all stripes have rallied to reactionary, millenarian environmentalism. After all, economic history has long shown socialism is a failed system. So the die-hard heirs of Marx were forced to latched onto the Green prophecies of an eco-apocalypse caused by capitalism as the last hope for Marxist theory.

        It’s true that most of the original eco-philosophers had a strong love of individuality and personal freedom, since those are traits that once characterise explorers and lovers of nature who dared venture into the deepest wildernesses. Today that’s all gone. Greenies live in inner-cities and rarely visit the country because they hate bogans. Climate change is part of the cultural and history wars.

        Worse of all, Green philosophy has given up on democracy, which they increasingly see as part of the problem. The problem for reactionary Greens is that the Democratic process seems biased towards supporting progress, development and economic common sense. What is needed, imagine the Greens, is a statist Green technocracy beholden only to Mother Earth rather than elections to wisely rule over us.

        Whenever Greens talk of “change” or “progress” or “reform” what they mean is that they want to progressively change your relationship to state power by “reforming” your civil liberties out of existence.

        So what we have now is a global Green movement seeking to impose a totalitarian world government based on a pseudo-scientific secular religion, which is itself in turn based upon millenarian prophecies of an End Times. And they’re the rational, mainstream Green NGOs!

        I know it sounds like a B-grade sci-fi movie. But it’s real.

        “If we really believed what scientist are telling us about global warming, the fire engines of every fire department would sound their sirens and race to the nearest factory to extinguish its furnaces. Every high school student would run to the thermostat of every classroom, turn it off and tear it out of the wall, then hit the parking lot to slash tires. Every responsible suburban parent would do safety gloves and walk around the block pulling the electrical meters out the utility boxes behind houses and condominiums. Every gas station attendant would press the emergency button to shut off the pumps, cut the hose, and glue the locks on the doors: every coal and petroleum corporation would immediately set about burying their unused product where it came from–using only the muscles of their own arms, of course.”

        –EarthFirst! document about how nothing (but civil war) can save us now. Download at your own risk.

        http://earthfirstnews.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/the-climate-is-changing-field-guide-to-false-solutions.pdf

        00

        • #
          Kevin Moore

          I read the Communist Manifesto and found the one thing missing from it was the rule of finance – it never got a mention. Yet it is the main theme of that other writing of the elders.

          00

        • #
          Tristan

          There’s no doubt that some people hold pre-colonial aboriginal life to be a sort of ideal. Most of those people don’t advocate a move towards such a lifestyle per se, but a societal shift that incorporates some of the characteristics that lifestyle entailed.

          This idea that the majority of environmentalists are some sort of neo-luddite just makes the claimant look ignorant.

          Although I’m wary of speaking for such a broad crowd, the green take on democracy is roughly this:

          Democracy is the ideal but;

          Non-proportional seat allocation = Non-democratic
          Political donations = Non-democratic

          00

      • #
        brc

        The foundations for today’s environmentalists are laid by Rachel Carson and ‘The Silent Spring’ and Paul Ehrlich and ‘The Population Bomb’. These fact-free rants are the true genesis of the modern ‘green’ movement for they are written by and for the refugees of the failed socialist attempts of the last century.

        The number 1 priority for modern day environmentalists is destruction of the human race to make way for other species. Any casual visit to a pro-warmist blog will confirm this quickly – they always make the case for ‘population control’ although never offer themselves or their own families up as volunteers. They see humans as a cancer on earth that must be controlled and reduced in size. Climate Change is simply the biggest stick to bang this message through with, despite it being completely lacking in evidence to be true.

        None of this discussion will be found in Thoreau’s writings. None at all. If anything, he was anti-government, anti-control and anti-tax – something the modern movement is 180 degrees in alignment with, as all prescriptions are for more control, more government, and yes, more tax.

        The likes of Thoreau might see ‘the wilderness’ as a way to relax and calm oneself and try and find lifes true meaning. After all, his cabin was only a couple of miles from his regular home. It’s not like he went deep wilderness, after all because he visited the nearby town on almost a daily basis.

        In reality, it’s just yet another Author drowning in a pit of selfish self-absorbancem the likes of which we are all intimately familiar. Yet another artist moaning in a pit of despair, which most people grow out of by the age of 5.

        We can all do with breaks away from modern society to refresh and re-align our priorities in life. This is something I am fortunate enough to do myself. But pretending that this type of activity is somehow a prescription for de-industrialization of society is rather a long bow to stretch. After all, to get to the woods, we all need roads, transport, building materials. None of which are possible if everone devolves to living in a cabin at the edge of town and spending their days gazing longingly into their own navel.

        Personally I get fed up with overripe idiots who are brought up in the comfort of a modern society, who then agitate for it’s destruction because they are unable to see the good in the world. When one of these two-faced liars comes out of a true agrarian society and rejects *all* tenets of modern life, and shows the world the virtuous way of his world, then we might agree. But most of us have better things to do than sit in circles of self-misery, pull our forelocks and agitate for the end of the world.

        We share the fruits of our ancestors, have built a rich civilisation based on the free exchange of thoughts, ideas and goods between consenting people with nothing to gain but a better deal for themselves. We have done it in spite of governments, thugs and thieves and the free and prosperous people of the world. All that needs to happen is for the patterns of the recent past (since the englightenment) to continue and things will improve.

        00

      • #
        Tristan

        Ok, now I have some time to respond.

        I was referring to Lionell’s nonsense about what started the environmentalist/conservationist movement. What I said is irrefutable. The foundations for the movement (and national parks etc) were laid by Thoreau. You know, that guy who wrote ‘civil disobedience’. Probably the most accurate term for his political philosophy is libertarian.

        Cohenite thinks that because I can describe an ideology that I must be an adherent. I ain’t. He also thinks that someone cannot appreciate the conveniences of modern life and be an environmentalist. Wrong and irrelevant.

        Winston doesn’t understand that my issue is with Lionell’s (that cheeky old troll) ludicrous claims, and that I’m correcting him. If you take issue with my corrections, address them.

        since you steadfastly refused above to acknowledge that whatever beliefs Thoreau and his disciples might aspire to, the practical result of the machinations of these very people is totally contrary to his alleged principles.

        Like, that’s not even the topic, dood.

        00

    • #
      kc

      Interesting concept. Tell kids not to smoke…..and they do. Tell them not to drink….and they do. Tell them to be good little lefty green activists!!!……maybe there is hope for us yet

      00

      • #
        brc

        Kids smoke and drink because of the inherent social coolness attributed to said activities.

        As soon as greenie environmentalism becomes uncool – all bets are off.

        At the moment celebrity air-head statements and trendy overpriced ‘organics’ dominate the need to make oneself ‘cool’. Given the rapacious need for fashions to eat themselves in order to keep the ‘cool’ out front, I expect this to all change pretty quickly. It also feeds heavily into the desire for young people to believe they alone can save the world from all it’s current ills, as well as a fascination for belief that their lifetime will be The One To End All Lifetimes.

        Trendy environmentalism is one solidy comedy sketch away from becoming a national joke. One Les Patterson away from becoming a parody of itself. One ‘Con the fruiterer’ away from creating an unkillable stereotype. Who will be the first comedian to grasp his opportunity. Time will tell.

        00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Recognizing that deep cuts in global greenhouse gas emissions are required according to science, and as documented in the Fourth Assessment Report of …

    This phrase caught my eye. You can substitute any deity you like for the word “science”, and any religious book in lieu of, “Fourth Assessment Report of”, and it would still carry the same message.

    00

  • #
    Snotrocket

    Of course, we must not forget – my particular favourite – from the Durban communique (FCCC/AWGLCA/2011/CRP.38) to be found at http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/awglca14/eng/crp38.pdf : (My bold)

    “17. Reduce global greenhouse gas emissions more than 100 per cent by 2040 by Annex I Parties; sustained by short-term mitigation by Annex I Parties of more than 50 per cent by 2017; ensuring stabilization of the global temperature at a maximum of a 1 degree Celsius increase;

    MORE THAN 100%!!! Sheesh!!!

    00

  • #
    incent

    Has anyone found a link the real Durban accord/whatever document. All the discussion I have seen up to now seems to be about what people ‘think’ is the real McCoy.

    It seems as though the UN are making darned sure that it does not ever see the light of day where you-or-I might get to understand what it says.

    00

    • #
      val majkus

      Incent, there’s a number of documents (tonnes of verbiage) and they can be found here:
      http://unfccc.int/2860.php

      00

      • #

        This is encouraging to hear from Durban.

        One of the end results of Durban was this:

        Capacity-building under the Kyoto Protocol

        This is especially encouraging for me, because, looking at it from the electrical viewpoint, my thinking was that it supposedly deals with the construction of increased electrical Capacity, so those people in that developing World can move out of the dark ages.

        So, I read this document, and you guys have a look. It’s pdf I know, but only 2 pages.

        Look at the language.

        Sounds like the Labor Party here in Australia, you know, let’s set up a committee!

        I couldn’t find much about anything new to bring electrical power Capacity to these Developing Countries, so I wanted to look a little deeper to see where these new power plants would be, what they would be, and where they would be.

        Umm!

        Wait a minute, I just looked up Capacity Development, and er, here’s what it means:

        Capacity building often refers to strengthening the skills, competencies and abilities of people and communities in developing societies so they can overcome the causes of their exclusion and suffering.

        Oh, silly duffer me, fancy thinking they were actually going to bring electrical power to the developing World.

        What was I thinking?

        Again, go look at the language used here.

        No wonder Kevvie is angling for a job at the UN. Coming from the ALP, it would be like a second home for him. Think of the Committees here.

        Tony.

        00

  • #
    wes george

    Geoff, great post. Some one should generate a word cloud to illustrate your essay.

    00

  • #
    wes george

    It’s funny that every skeptical blog is running posts on the Durban conference as if it’s big news. But apparently that’s just another Big Tobacco-funded lie!

    I just did a round of most prominent of the pious true believers – John Crook’s Skeptical Science and the smugly self-righteous NASA blokes over at Real Climate don’t have a single post about Durban COP19. It’s like it didn’t happen. Contrast that to their non-stop coverage of Copenhagen in 2009.

    Tamino at Closed Mind doesn’t mention Durban. Eli Rabbit obliquely refers to Durban a week ago. No updates. Deltoid has no Durban news. DeSmog is also unaware that a climate summit just occurred. Amoz hasn’t updated since June, neither has the Center for Environment Journalism. That about exhausted my bookmark folder “holier than thou.”

    Oh, Joey Romm does mention it on Climate Prats two days ago, but now it’s buried under a heap of new doom and gloom posts. Their conclusion about Duban after admitting it totally failed:

    This (Durban agreement) won’t satisfy the 350.org crowd, and it must greatly annoy the opponents of sensible climate policy, but in the real world of international negotiations on this exceptionally difficult global commons problem, this is what success looks like.

    –– Robert Stavins, Director of the Harvard Environmental Economics Program

    How many of us are surprised that failure looks just like success in the world of Climate politics?

    00

    • #
      brc

      It’s just a simple case of hiding the decline (in conference success)

      Trust me, in 2 years time people will pay less attention to the Durban gabfest than they did to the Copenhagen gabfest – and does anyone remember what was in that document that Obama waved around? Has anyone enacted any legislation or made any changes in accordance with the Copenhagen manifesto/document/accord/whatever-they-call-it

      No, Durban wasn’t even a ripple in the pond. The only thing we have to watch out for is sneaky legislation to try and implement things.

      But the politicians know the game is up with voters. After Labor gets smashed on the Carbon Tax, there won’t be too many that will try that one on again.

      00

  • #
    pat

    14 Dec: WUWT: UK police seize computers of skeptic blogger in England
    The first blogger to break the Climategate2 story has had a visit from the police and has had his computers seized. Tallbloke’s Talkshop first reported on CG2 due to the timing of the release being overnight in the USA. Today he was raided by six UK police (Norfolk Constabulary and Metropolitan police) and several of his computers were seized as evidence. He writes:…
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/14/uk-police-seize-computers-of-skeptic-in-england/

    14 Dec: Bishop Hill: IPCC declares itself above the law
    Richard Tol reports from the IPCC WGII lead author meeting in San Francisco:
    …the IPCC member states have ruled on freedom of information legislation. Specifically, it has been decided that FoI does not apply to IPCC material…
    http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/12/14/ipcc-declares-itself-above-the-law.html

    what more do the CAGW Believers need to understand what a scam it is?????

    00

  • #
    Cassandra

    JAN get on the ball. There now trying to arrest skeptic bloggers check watts up with that, CA NOW!etc

    00

  • #
    pat

    pure propaganda:

    15 Dec: Australian: Fay Schlesinger: William and Kate to visit Tuvalu, Charles set for Australia in Jubilee world tour
    Climate change is putting paradise in danger, however. No point is more than 5 metres above sea level, and rising waters threaten to engulf it…
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/william-and-kate-to-visit-tuvalu-charles-set-for-australia-in-jubilee-world-tour/story-e6frg6so-1226222765832

    15 Dec: UK Daily Mail: Electricity bills to rocket by 25% because of ‘green’ targets, says Government
    Electricity bills will rocket by almost a quarter as a direct result of ‘green’ targets, the Government’s own advisers warned last night…
    The impact on families will vary according to consumption, but the report found that those whose homes are heated by electricity could see their annual bills rise by more than £400…
    Former Trade Secretary Peter Lilley said Government policy appeared to be based on pushing up fuel prices to limit consumption.
    He added: ‘The truth is that we do not yet know how big the effects of carbon dioxide are on the temperature, still less the balance of harm it will do.
    ‘We are penalising the current generation on the basis of protecting future generations from an unknown threat.’ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2074299/Electricity-bills-rocket-25-green-targets-say-Government.html

    00

  • #
    pat

    14 Dec: ScienceMag: Ralph Hall ( (R-TX) Speaks Out on Climate Change
    by Jeffrey Mervis
    The chair of the House of Representatives science committee doesn’t think much of the investigations exonerating the scientists involved in the 2009 Climategate e-mail scandal. He also believes that climate scientists are driven by hopes of financial gain in producing reports that provide evidence for global warming…
    Ralph Hall in a statement to ScienceInsider expanding on his comments to the NJ: …
    Recently released emails highlight many of the same concerns that initially emerged in the 2009 ‘ClimateGate’ emails – a small cadre of scientists coordinating advocacy rather than communicating uncertainty; manipulating journals rather than facilitating peer review; and cherry-picking data rather than following transparency principles, which is a central tenant (sic) of science. While several groups have investigated the actions associated with the ClimateGate emails, these straw-man reviews failed to address the real underlying allegations that continue to undermine the integrity of those involved…
    http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/12/ralph-hall-speaks-out-on-climate.html

    00

  • #
    pat

    14 Dec: Reuters: EU carbon plunges 10 percent to record low of 6.30 euros
    The ICE ECX December 2011 EUA contract fell 73 cents to an all-time low of 6.30 euros, down 10.4 percent on Tuesday’s 7.03-euro settlement.
    By 16.30 GMT, the contract had recovered slightly to 6.41 euros on healthy turnover of around 15 million units.
    The drop sends the contract into unchartered territory, falling well below its previous low of 6.77 euros on December 6 as market traders saw few signs of respite in the EU economy to boost demand for emission permits.
    “I still don’t see any bottom to this market,” said one carbon trader, who said any positive sentiment from this weekend’s landmark U.N. climate summit in Durban was purely psychological as it brought no increase in demand for permits.
    “It’s clear that Durban didn’t help, and Canada’s announcement of its Kyoto Protocol withdrawal tells you what little countries think about international agreements,” he added…
    Meanwhile, the December 2011 CER contract trading on ICE Futures Europe fell a further 13 percent on Wednesday to a new low of 3.80 euros as the market absorbed 1.1 million ERU credits issued late last night from Russia.
    Front-year CERs had already plumbed new depths on Tuesday, dropping almost 10 percent on expectation that the market would continue to face a deluge of supply…
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/14/us-markets-point-carbon-idUSTRE7BD1KL20111214

    00

  • #
    Geoff Sherrington

    There are few nice quotes above, particularly good ones from Lionell. The quote that I hope brings this back on topic is from “Atlas Shrugged” by Ayn Rand ca 1953 -
    “Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against–then you’ll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We’re after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you’d better get wise to it. There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted–and you create a nation of law-breakers–and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Rearden, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.”

    Re Incent & REAL agreement document from Durban, I took a reference from What’s Up With That, then Anthony deleted large parts of the blog including the reference. It’s shorter than some others I’ve seen including the one referenced by Lord Monckton below, but it might not be the definitive document. Its title is “United Nations FCCC/AWGLCA/2011/L.4″ dated 9 Dec 2011, sub-title “Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention Fourteenth session part four”.

    It seems to leave out some parts like New World Government, Universal Law Court and that “greater than 100%” mention. It does not have words to say that it was the adopted version, but it does not seem to be at odds with other late-stage reports.

    00

    • #

      I still can’t believe how relevant this book is in this day and age.

      I always wanted to read it, especially having read ‘The Fountainhead’ in the mid 70′s. I finally located a good copy of ‘Atlas Shrugged’ in 1994, and read it as fast as I could, because it was just that good.

      When I finished it, I was actually disappointed, because I thought that was it.

      I’ll never read anything that good again.

      I still read a lot, but that novel is the peak as far as I’m concerned.

      I’ve revisited it twice now, and each time I find something new.

      I identify with the novel as an electrician, but that’s the only similarity.

      No wonder this novel is so vilified.

      The real thing about the novel is in part related to the narrative.

      You have to want to read this book, to commit the time, to make a conscious decision, and until you reach that stage of wanting to read it, then you’ll believe what is said about it by those who do not want it spread far and wide.

      Once you do read it, you gain insight.

      The relevance to what is happening today is astounding.

      Tony.

      00

  • #
    Mal

    “The killing fields of Durban” – This tripe deserves all the ridicule the sane can muster. Congratulations Ms Nova on debasing science. You are doing a swell job for your masters, The Heartland Institute.

    00

  • #
    Mal

    Oh and you and your ilk aren’t “tackling” groupthink. You are perfect examples of it. Poor old George must be rolling in his grave at the overuse of 1984 references.

    00

  • #
    Geoff Sherrington

    Mal, as author of this article (and an experiences scientist), I can say with no doubt whatsoever that I have never received a cent for writing about climate; that I am not associated with any climate body, including Heartland Institute; that on the other hand I have kept myself informed from early times through meeting people such as Maurice Strong, Richard Lindzen.

    You should be positive and comment on how well Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” complements the comments above. Go on, have a read, the paperback is only about 1,000 pages.

    As for Big Oil, I’d guess they pay $10 to activism favouring CAGW for every $1 paid to groups like Heartland. Google Lord Browne, climate advisor to Deutsche Bank and former CEO of BP. Google Lord Oxburgh, of ineffective inquiry fame, a former Chirman of Shell.

    Seems to me you have not done your basic homework, by putting passion before evidence.

    00

  • #