JoNova

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


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

Australian Environment Conference Oct 20 2012


micropace


GoldNerds

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



Durban: Wild ambit fails, but money flows. Landmark non legal “something-arother” agreed to.

Good news. The talented strategists left the UNFCCC team before COP17 in Durban. The A-graders saw the trainwreck coming and moved on.

Everyone knows it’s a herculean task to get 190-odd countries to sign anything, and with a typical pragmatical approach the UN drafting team have gone for … not just a new “International Court” (crikey!) but rights for Mother Earth (can we be sued by a rock?), and oh boy, the holy grail, the whole kit and caboodle … we demand Peace On Earth, and a  Partridge in a Pear Tree, as Part 47a, and starting by morning tea tomorrow.

Monckton  reports that the funereal collapsing Durban talks still held the highest of ambitions. Godlike even. The real action behind the posters of parrots and pleas to save pygmy corals, or spotted limpets is the plea to make some unelected bureaucrats the totalitarian Kings of The World.

In part it’s chilling, a New International Court — which could presumably try you for crimes against coastlines, clouds, or (more likely) against endangered windfarms. Those with their hands on the legal wheel want the power to direct money (was that $1.6 Trillion?)  from the richest nations to their friends, patrons, or pet causes. If they became the anointed Kings, it would swiftly become a crime to speak doubts of climate models upon which billions of trades depends.  The darkest evil always comes cloaked with helpful intentions.

Fortunately, what’s left of the UN strategic team is even lower caliber than B-grade, beyond Z, somewhere into hexadecimal.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the grown-ups in the IPCC-support-team left the party sometime after Copenhagen, and the Z++ team are left to guard the bones. No one can take this wild ambit claim seriously.

But soft, what light through yonder window breaks?
The Gods of PR and marketing sing,
a landmark deal — lo and behold!
To wave and laud, and on which to cling.

Of course, at the 28th hour of extended play they had to announce something “landmark” and thus they did. All you need to know about their success is written in the following paragraph:

“The deal doesn’t explicitly compel any nation to take on emissions targets, although most emerging economies have volunteered to curb the growth of their emissions.”

That’s the good news. The bad news is they still got our money:

Sunday’s deal also set up the bodies that will collect, govern and distribute tens of billions of dollars a year for poor countries. Other documents in the package lay out rules for monitoring and verifying emissions reductions, protecting forests, transferring clean technologies to developing countries and scores of technical issues.

Source [Assoc Press]

The reports from green observers offer us much insight:

Environmentalists criticized the package – as did many developing countries in the debate – for failing to address what they called the most urgent issue, to move faster and deeper in cutting carbon emissions.

“The good news is we avoided a train wreck,” said Alden Meyer, recalling predictions a few days ago of a likely failure. “The bad news is that we did very little here to affect the emissions curve.”

But then it was never about emissions, was it?

 ———————————————————————————

Monckton reports on the Ambit Claims of the Draft

Behind the scenes, throughout the year since Cancun, the now-permanent bureaucrats who have made highly-profitable careers out of what they lovingly call “the process” have been beavering away at what is now a 138-page document. Its catchy title is “Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action Under the Convention — Update of the amalgamation of draft texts in preparation of [one imagines they mean 'for'] a comprehensive and balanced outcome to be presented to the Conference of the Parties for adoption at its seventeenth session: note by the Chair.” In plain English, these are the conclusions the bureaucracy wants.

The contents of this document, turgidly drafted with all the UN’s skill at what the former head of its documentation center used to call “transparent impenetrability”, are not just off the wall – they are lunatic.

Main points:

  • Ø A new International Climate Court will have the power to compel Western nations to pay ever-larger sums to third-world countries in the name of making reparation for supposed “climate debt”. The Court will have no power over third-world countries. Here and throughout the draft, the West is the sole target. “The process” is now irredeemably anti-Western.
  • Ø “Rights of Mother Earth”: The draft, which seems to have been written by feeble-minded green activists and environmental extremists, talks of “The recognition and defence of the rights of Mother Earth to ensure harmony between humanity and nature”. Also, “there will be no commodification [whatever that may be: it is not in the dictionary and does not deserve to be] of the functions of nature, therefore no carbon market will be developed with that purpose”.
  • Ø “Right to survive”: The draft childishly asserts that “The rights of some Parties to survive are threatened by the adverse impacts of climate change, including sea level rise.” At 2 inches per century, according to eight years’ data from the Envisat satellite? Oh, come off it! The Jason 2 satellite, the new kid on the block, shows that sea-level has actually dropped over the past three years.
  • Ø War and the maintenance of defence forces and equipment are to cease – just like that – because they contribute to climate change. There are other reasons why war ought to cease, but the draft does not mention them.

Read  it all at Climate Depot….

 

h/t to Tom Nelson

 

—–

 

Update: This is a nothingness deal — the last minute PR grab to pretend that it wasn’t a disaster,

It’s so they can use words like “legally” something, “landmark”, “significant” and “progress”. The last thing they want to admit is that the wheels have run off the road. God forbid they might have to cancel COP18.

In comments John Brookes reports that the ABC are taking of a legally binding agreement for 2020.

Maybe he means this (or something like it)?

My thoughts (from the comments).

What does a legally binding agreement to make a “legally binding agreement in 2020″ mean?

Not much.

Imagine what kind of legally binding agreement people would sign in 2011 that legally binds them to a document that does not exist but will by 2020? That would be a blank cheque. “I agree to buy your house in 2020 for …an unknown sum”.

If they had signed a legally binding document to set up an emissions trading scheme in 2020 they’d have starting prices, supply, demand, markets, rules, who’s in, who’s out, etc etc etc. They don’t. They’ve signed a legally binding document to come to a meeting before 2020 and sort out all the details them. In other words, this landmark deal may amount to not much more than a COP18, COP19, COP20…. Of course, it will still cost lots of money, and thousands of children will die of preventable diseases who could have been saved if the UN shut down the UNFCCC and used the money differently.

 ——————

Update #2: The technical meaning of “something-arother”

A something-arother is a 3 year old’s way of describing a vaguely known thing. eg: Why doesn’t the car go? “Something-arother broke.” Apologies to the official dictionaries of English.

Jo

—————–

UPDATE #3

Comments from Lord Christopher Monckton  (my emphasis):

“One should distinguish between the Kyoto Protocol, from which Canada has resiled without penalty, and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, from which she has not resiled and by which she continues to be bound. The Secretariat has arrogated many new powers to itself under the apparently non-binding annual agreements at Copenhagen, Cancun, and Durban. Increasingly, these agreements are worded using the language of legal compulsion when talking about the obligations of Western countries. I suspect this approach has been taken as a maladroit attempt to circumvent the refusal of the US to ratify Kyoto or any suchlike treaty that does not bind third-world countries to specific emissions cuts. The UN is hopiing that its many stooges on the US Supreme Court bench will in due course take the view that these various apparently non-binding agreements are “customary international law” and, consequently, binding on the US whether or not the Senate has ratified any treaty embodying them. The drafting of the Durban agreement, in particular, appears to have been specifically with this twist of the US Constitution in mind. – C ”

H/t Mark

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.4/10 (74 votes cast)
Durban: Wild ambit fails, but money flows. Landmark non legal "something-arother" agreed to., 9.4 out of 10 based on 74 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/cvhxp7k

186 comments to Durban: Wild ambit fails, but money flows. Landmark non legal “something-arother” agreed to.

  • #
    Popeye

    Jo,

    I’ve already sent a copy of Moncktons report to my local member (Michelle Rowland) asking her to advise me on what her government has committed Australia to with respect to this Durban farce.

    Don’t know if/when I’ll get a response but will let you know if/when I do.

    Cheers,


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    “The recognition and defence of the rights of Mother Earth to ensure harmony between humanity and nature”
    Does that mean they realise that oil floats on water and if we do not continue to slowly and carefully extract it all out from under the sea that it may come up on it’s own all at once?
    On the other hand does it mean we must submit to the frequent desire of “Mother Earth” to enjoy global extinction events?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    Alex Jones with Monckton of Benchley..
    People u gotta look at this too and look at the Marc Morano interview by Alex too
    http://www.infowars.com/lord-christopher-monckton-the-coming-new-international-climate-court/
    The fascist NWO at its best. Jail the Lot!
    Mild good news it looks like most of the big population countries have told the UN to “get stuffed!”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    The ABC news seemed to say that in 2020 there would be a legally binding agreement.

    In some ways this is a good thing. If the current “skeptic” projections of cooling are correct, this cooling should be obvious by then (and future actions can be chosen in the light of this). If, however, warming continues, then the need for action will be clear enough for all to see.

    Most people concerned about AGW will not be happy with the 8 year delay. But if continued warming is evident earlier, action could be brought forward.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Sean McHugh

      John Brooks said,

      In some ways this is a good thing. If the current “skeptic” projections of cooling are correct, this cooling should be obvious by then (and future actions can be chosen in the light of this).

      The sceptic’s position is usually one of allowing for natural changes, not one of prophesying trends.

      If, however, warming continues, then the need for action will be clear enough for all to see.

      Did action need to be taken with the Medieval Warming Period? And aren’t we saving the planet anyway, with our ‘carbon’ tax?


      Report this

      00

    • #

      What does a legally binding agreement to make a “legally binding agreement in 2020″ mean?

      Not much.

      Imagine what kind of legally binding agreement people would sign in 2011 that legally binds them to a document that does not exist but will by 2020? If they had signed a legally binding document to set up an emissions trading scheme in 2020 they’d have starting prices, supply, demand, markets, rules, who’s in, who’s out, etc etc etc. They don’t. They’ve signed a legally binding document to come to a meeting before 2020 and sort out all the details them. In other words, this landmark deal may amount to not much more than a COP18, COP19, COP20…. Of course, it will still cost lost of money, and thousands of children will die of preventable diseases who could have been saved if the UN shut down the UNFCCC and used the money differently.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Jazza

        Exactly

        How many gabfests has it taken to decide to hold another gabfest?

        They could have decided what they “decided” by a telephone/video link up of an hour!

        And the next bunfight, whenever and wherever it occurs, should be dubbed “The gabfest to end all gabfests” but it won’t, on that alone you can rely


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Siliggy

      John Brookes
      “this cooling should be obvious by then “

      John it is obvious now!
      With added Durban/Gore effect for time critical dramatization.
      Look what happened over the last week Here, Here, and Here.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Mark D.

        Holy crap Siliggy! We’re going to need some hockey sticks!

        Thanks for the links too I’m going to put them to use in another thread.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Peter Lang

          Mark D,

          Great idea. How about a hockey stick showing news coverage and media interest? There was months of continuous news coverage leading up, throughout and after Copenhagen. Less for Cancan’t, and very little for Durban. The media interest has turned down in a right angle in just two years. It’s more like a golf putter than a hockeystick.


          Report this

          00

    • #
      Krishna Gans

      Imagine, the first sapiens would have had the idea to become pacifist or something what today is called an oeco or to “protect future”
      The result would have been, no further sapiens here to write silliness about AGW.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Lars P.

      Well John, in this I guess you are right, but not exactly how you expect it, by 2020 we should have a better understanding on what is comming, how much the projection of the yesterdays models can be trusted or not.
      In the last 10 years a lot of progress was done on science. Satellite observations will have another decade.
      As we saw better data did not really suit CAGW
      http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/the-travesty-of-the-missing-heat-deep-ocean-or-outer-space/
      How much sea level rise and missing heat will we have? +3.2 cm and accelerating? Lets see. Will you still be here by then?


      Report this

      00

    • #
      wes george

      Actually, John’s is being very consistent here.

      For some time now he’s claimed that we can’t know whether the Earth is dangerously warming for sure, we’ll just have to wait and see, but we should divert billions and billions of dollars away from real social, R&D and even ecological problems anyway, you know, on the “precautionary principle,” which says when uncertain, panic. Kids totally understand the precautionary principle, they call it being afraid of the dark.

      So, according to Johnny if by 2020, the Earth still isn’t warming…well then, what’s a couple of trillion bucks between mates?

      Money grows on trees. We’re all so fat and rich in the Western nations we don’t remember hardships our great grand parents struggled through between 1929-49. For the most of developing the world 1930 is about where they are today. Only worse, because they can watch us, fat, rich and exceeding stupid Westerners on their new TVs and Internet access. What fools we must look to an upper-wardly mobile Indian whose idea of luxury is a 12-hour work day to buy his family a washing machine and a motorcycle. Luxuries his parents only dreamed about.

      But, hey, if the CAGW fraud can just stagger across the finish line before it falls over, just long enough to kick-start the foundation of autocratic World Government that’s all that really ever mattered to our Leftist intellectual elites.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Winston

        So, according to Johnny if by 2020, the Earth still isn’t warming…well then, what’s a couple of trillion bucks between mates?

        As Shakespeare said “There’s the rub”. Who is going to admit that the whole CAGW circus, wasting all this dough, was built on a foundation of quicksand and was a gross miscalculation of the natural system. Nobody will want to take the blame, and so in the best Orwellian tradition, just pretend that black is white, up is down, warming is cooling. I can here the chorus now of- “We never said there was definitely going to be warming, only that the climate would be variable- and look, we were right, it has been variable!” So I can’t see any “Mea Culpa” coming along any time soon.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          wes george

          Winston,

          You can already see that happening today. Former supporters of CAGW are just quietly tip toeing away. For instance, where all are the Green warriors eager to explain how historic the Durban summit is? Back in 2009, there were plenty of smart Warmists to debate online here or over at Jennifer Marohasy’s blog. Today all we got is Councillor MattB who is posting anonymously so the voters of his shire can’t follow his true political alignments. And Johnny Brookes who defends his faith with all the passion of a wet noodle.

          I remember the Copenhagen conference well, because I was stuck out in a paddock digging postholes in rocky ground. Slow dull work. So I had the ute door propped open with Radio National blaring all day long for the whole bloody week (was the only radio station I could get out back of the black stump) For the Copenhagen conference ABC Radio National switched over to the BBC for half day long reports all week long and there was deep green passion in spades! Now you might think 2 years later that much closer to The End Times the moral urgency would be so high that the ABC would run hours and hours of live reports from Durban like they did from Copenhagen. Not. Nada. Just an occasional news bullet at the top of the hour.

          Everyone who can get away with it is just quietly slinking away with their hat tipped forward to hide their eyes.

          00

    • #
      JPeden

      If, however, warming continues, then the need for action will be clear enough for all to see.

      No, John, the fact of your own mortality and insignificance does not mean that everyone else should become either enslaved or prematurely dead, “before it’s too late!”


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Sean McHugh

      This is my second reply to this offer from John Brookes:

      If the current “skeptic” projections of cooling are correct, this cooling should be obvious by then (and future actions can be chosen in the light of this). If, however, warming continues, then the need for action will be clear enough for all to see.

      Consider the following:

      1. He says, if the warming continues (like it’s supposedly been doing), it will be obvious to all that action is required. He doesn’t seem to consider the possibility of natural warming, and apparently we won’t either. Never mind that the temperature has not been following the AGW models.

      2. AGW sceptics are sceptical of human-induced warming and are not, per se, prophets of temperature trends (cooling or otherwise). Leave that for the climate alarmists and remember that they are stuck with it. John is trying to shift the burden of proof via a straw man.

      3. He says that, if cooling becomes obvious, future actions can be chosen in light of this. Why should any action be necessary if there is no clear warming trend? Surely that is the whole point.

      4. He says, “if the warming continues”. In other words, he doesn’t acknowledge that it has discontinued for the last decade plus. So what is the likelihood that he would concede cooling or flatness over the current decade?

      5. He says, “Most people concerned about AGW will not be happy with the 8 year delay. But if continued warming is evident earlier, action could be brought forward”. This arranges it that the sceptic needs about (in total) two decades of no warming – if not actual cooling – while the warmist needs warming to start again and continue for perhaps just another 4 years or so, to demonstrate to all the leftist truth.

      John is not trying to bridge the gulf between us and them; he’s trying to sell us a bridge.


      Report this

      00

    • #

      Come on John tell us what the ideal temperature for the planet is? Surely you know or are you just toying with us ?


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Jazza

        What temperature and where exactly,in all climate zones or just some is it warming or cooling and who cares when we travel this earth like it isn’t full of different zones?

        This whole Climate Change “warming” nonsense is built on AVERAGES, and we all know they can be twisted and actually misrepresent many of their content real numbers much of the time.


        Report this

        10

  • #
    Peter Miller

    The proposed system of wealth distribution is so simple it works like this:

    Country A gives UN administative body $100 million:

    Step 1: 15%, or $15 million, goes on UN admininistration expeneses, including thousands of extra, well-paid, bureaucrats.

    Step 2: 20%, or $20 million, goes to consultants, as the bureaucrats are too incompetent, or too lazy, to make their own decisions.

    Step 3: 5%, or $5 million, goes on transfer costs – difficult to understand what these are, but they make bankers and others of similar ilk smile.

    Step 4: 15%, or $15 million, goes on receiving country’s new bureaucracy set up to administer the funds.

    Step 5: 20%, or $20 million, goes on consultants, which the UN’s consultants (probably closely related)insist are necessary to ensure the correct usage of funds.

    Step 6: 10%, or $10 million, goes to banks in a country with lots of mountains, to compensate receiving countries’ top bureaucrats for their ‘low salaries’.

    Step 7: 10%, or $10 million, goes to banks in a country with lots of mountains, to compensate despotic and progressive Third World leaders for their enlightenment in negotiating the funds.

    Balance of 5% is spent on something, which may or may not be useful.

    This is classic wealth redistribution in action, taking money from those who work hard (western taxpayers) and giving it to those who don’t (bureaucrats, consultants and politicians). Such is the way of the world – nothing ever changes.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Sunday’s deal also set up the bodies that will collect, govern and distribute tens of billions of dollars a year for poor countries. Other documents in the package lay out rules for monitoring and verifying emissions reductions, protecting forests, transferring clean technologies to developing countries and scores of technical issues

    And under which treaty did they do this? They are trying to live their own wet dreams if they think anybody is going to take any notice of this – it has no basis in law, none, zilch, nada, zero, Никакие.

    Kyoto expires at the end of 2012, and with no chance of extending it, let alone negotiating a new treaty, they are playing in a sandpit while thinking it is a beach.

    It is my understanding that on 1 Jan 2013, we can all collectively raise the appropriate digit or two towards the UN. Well, apart from you Aussies … shame about that.

    Yes I know, NZ has a trading scheme as well, but we also have a very reasonable Prime Minister who will give us all of our money back at the end of next year. Don’t laugh, he is a very nice family man who just happens to have a phobia about tape recorders.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Ross

      Rereke Whakaaro –Are you saying that the supposed 5 year extention of the Kyoto agreement that they announced is just PR spin , with no validity?? ( Last night I thought it was abit strange that they could extend an international agreement by what effectively a “show of hands”)


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        No, I was not aware, when I responded to Jo, that they had agreed to extend Kyoto until 2015. I was more interested in the trade implications (of which there are many).


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Ross

          RK. It is probably a case of “playing with words” on my part but I note in the following link that they have agreed ” to delay any agreement on the replacement of Kyoto until at least 2015″

          http://thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/4532-philip-stott-the-basic-truth-about-durban.html

          So one has to ask if the existing Kyoto deal expires in 2012 , is there a clause in it which allows some sort indeterminant extention until a replacement is found or do we go into limbo for a couple of years without any agreement in place?


          Report this

          00

        • #
          GrazingGoat66

          Yeah because Kyoto has been such an unmitigated “success” when it comes to controlling “Climate Change” hasn’t it people?
          A complete and utter waste of time, money and effort for a problem that simply doesn’t exist.


          Report this

          00

    • #

      Our PM simply doesn’t care who has a tape recorder they’re not lies to her !!!


      Report this

      00

  • #
    KeithH

    A very interesting and thought-provoking guest post by Dennis Ray Wingo at WUWT. The True Failure of Durban.

    I particularly liked his paragraph on Energy and its historical effect on the human condition and lifespan.

    “If we put the proper amount of resources into these (fusion)energy technologies, then we would “solve” the CO2 problem as a side benefit and we could build a world energy grid that would do more than all the antipoverty programs in place today put together to improve life on Earth.
    In researching the history of the industrial revolution, human lifespan has been directly proportional to the amount of inexpensive energy available to us. human lifespans in the west went from 35 years of age in the year 1700 to almost 50 years of age at the peak of the age of coal in 1900. Today at the peak of the oil age that number has climbed to almost 80 years in Annex 1 countries. It is also in the advanced energy countries where population growth has dropped to replacement or even below. There is a direct correlation between wealth and population and it is far more fun to make everyone wealthy than to make everyone suffer in poverty as would be the ultimate result of Durban.”

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/10/the-true-failure-of-durban/#more-52789


    Report this

    00

    • #
      bananabender

      Human lifespans in the west went from 35 years of age in the year 1700 to almost 50 years of age at the peak of the age of coal in 1900.

      The short average lifespans in the past were due almost entirely to high child mortality, death during childbirth and accidents. People in “primitive “societies typically had similar lifespans to us if they reached middle age.

      Health and life expectancy actually plummeted during the Industrial Revolution due to food shortages, pollution and overcrowding. Life expectancy and health was better in the Middle Ages than in the mid-19th century.

      While our life expectancy has improved our physical and mental health is often far worse than that of “primitive” people.

      According to studies by Professer Staffen Lindberg the people of Kitiva, a small island near New Guinea, have no indications of stroke, diabetes, dementia or congestive heart failure. None are overweight. All have excellent blood pressure. No one has acne.
      http://www.staffanlindeberg.com/TheKitavaStudy.html


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Lionell Griffith

        You said: While our life expectancy has improved our physical and mental health is often far worse than that of “primitive” people.

        Ask yourself why there are more sick people in advanced societies. The reason is that people of ill health get their lives extended by advanced medicine. They thereby become more numerous among the living because they are still alive. In primitive societies, sick people are more likely to die young and become no longer part of the living population statistics.

        Lacking advanced medical care, it is stay healthy and you live. Get sick, and you die. Hence there is a much higher correlation between being healthy and being alive in primitive societies as compared to advanced societies. Take away advanced medicine and you would soon see a similar correlation between being healthy and being alive in advanced societies as well.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Louis Hissink

          Lionel,

          A corollary might be that it is a fear of death itself in advanced societies that compel many to extend their “natural” lifespan by medical intervention. It’s this fear of death that might be the problem.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Winston

          Absolutely right, Lionel.

          Medicine has advanced greatly in promoting longevity in the ill, and especially in the very ill. It has advanced greatly in improving survival rates in cancers which were once fatal within a very short time frame in the natural course of events.

          Where medicine has not advanced as rapidly is in preventing illness in the first place, but at least some of this is due to commercial interests jeopardising the quality of our food sources through some additives, certain but not all preservatives, and especially in the addition of sugars, like high fructose corn syrup,and fats like trans fats, and excessive salt into otherwise healthy food sources, negating much of the benefits of cholesterol and blood pressure lowering interventions, for example.

          This does not negate the benefits of modern medicine, just merely points out that we should stop sabotaging these benefits with other more basic lifestyle issues which could benefit greatly with some thoughtful minor degree of regulation to be established to govern food adulteration practices. Unfortunately, our fearless government is more focussed on efforts to change the weather, hold back the tide, stop the motion of the cosmos, etc and in reducing the nation’s productivity, while providing pedantic anal retentive microregulatory frameworks in areas where it is counterproductive, to ever bother with doing anything that potentially beneficial.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            JMD

            our fearless government is more focussed on efforts to change the weather, hold back the tide, stop the motion of the cosmos, etc and in reducing the nation’s productivity

            I would also add leaning on the banking system to miraculously turn debt into money – alchemy – but few seem to know or care.


            Report this

            00

      • #
        wes george

        KeithH, right on, brother!

        Dennis Ray Wingo at WUWT. The True Failure of Durban.

        It’s a must read….

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/10/the-true-failure-of-durban/

        I do not wish to seem overdramatic, but I can only conclude from the information that is available to me as Secretary-General, that the Members of the United Nations have perhaps ten years left in which to subordinate their ancient quarrels and launch a global partnership to curb the arms race, to improve the human environment, to defuse the population explosion, and to supply the required momentum to development efforts. If such a global partnership is not forged within the next decade, then I very much fear that the problems that I have mentioned will have reached staggering proportions that they will be beyond our capacity to control.

        —UN Secretary General U Thant, 1969


        Report this

        00

      • #
        brc

        The men probably all have 10 inch members and the Women DD bra sizes and washboard stomachs as well.

        Could it be that a small group of racially similar people all have good genetics? Could it be that through historical reasons those with genetics that led to heart disease, diabetes, etc have left no heirs? It gets even better if it’s a polygamous society where the healthiest, strongest and best looking guy gets to sire a disproportionate number of offspring with the healthiest, strongest and best looking girls.

        When I was at school there were frustrating people with perfect bodies, hair, acne-less faces and no health problems at all. Yes, those annoying young students won the genetic lottery and the rest of us had to struggle on with acne, asthma, bad knees, itchy skin or whatever other ill beset teenagers from time to time.

        Of course people who eat fresh food and work hard for it all day are going to be in better condition. But I’ll bet you all the Fresh Lobsters in PNG they wouldn’t mind a lazboy, airconditioning and a fridge to go with it.

        In other news, Norwegians are all frustratingly good looking and healthy. Maybe it’s all those glaciers or something. Couldn’t possibly be a long line of good genetics.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        The short average lifespans in the past were due almost entirely to high child mortality, death during childbirth and accidents. People in “primitive “societies typically had similar lifespans to us if they reached middle age.

        No, I don’t accept that. As I said on a previous thread, “Just 200 years ago, 1 in 5 children would die in Europe, before their first birthday. … Those that survived had an average life expectancy of around thirty five years. Overcrowding in cities (what we would today call medium size towns) increased the infant mortality to 1 in 3, and reduced the “adult” life expectancy to around twenty years.

        Health and life expectancy actually plummeted during the Industrial Revolution due to food shortages, pollution and overcrowding. Life expectancy and health was better in the Middle Ages than in the mid-19th century.

        This was only true at the start of the industrial revolution because of overcrowding – more people moving to “cities” than the facilities could cope with. Overcrowding results in higher mortalities because the normal cyclic outbreaks of typhus, dysentery, smallpox, tuberculosis, etc. have a higher reinfection rate, simply because there are more people in a given area, and thus more people can become infected from a single source.

        Victorian society fixed a significant portion of the health problem quite quickly by investing in energy to pump clean water, remove sewage, transport food, warm living areas, provide stable employment (and hence consistent food), et cetera.

        Finally, “… the people of Kitiva …” are currently the subjects of much study, not because of their lifestyle, per se, but because they appear to have a genetic disposition to be resistant to stroke, diabetes, dementia or congestive heart failure. Yes, they are abnormal in their resistance to certain diseases, but the causative agent has yet to be definitively identified by empirical means.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        KeithH

        Very pleasing to note what a great discussion my link provided. I found the different slants that people took from the article particularly interesting and most people made some very good points.

        For me, these two sentences are telling in the context of statements being used in the AGW debate, as IMO they provide answers to many of the points raised by the warmist lobby.

        “It is also in the advanced energy countries where population growth has dropped to replacement or even below. There is a direct correlation between wealth and population and it is far more fun to make everyone wealthy than to make everyone suffer in poverty as would be the ultimate result of Durban.”

        Cheers to all!


        Report this

        00

    • #
      wes george

      Sorry, Lionel and Banana are just wrong.

      But it’s understandable. The normative myth is that primitive people living as noble savages were much healthier than we are in our modern sedentary lives, even comforted as we are by modern medicine. Not true. Archaeological studies from around the world through out the ages show that life was always far more diseased, brutish, painful and short than during the modern age. Today our health and life expectance continue to improve, in spite of ever constant background harangue about how fat and poisoned by chemicals we are…And this is what one would expect in a society where the actual pace of technological and cultural evolution is not only rapid, but constantly accelerating.

      Winston has a point that the kind of disease modern Westerners tend to suffer are different than in the past because we are living much longer and the great scourges of the past, smallpox, malaria, tuberculosis, polio, cholera, stomach cancers and food poisoning etc. have been largely eradicated. There are also many more recognised diseases today, such as late onset diabetes, that simply passed without identification in the past. But we’re still the healthiest generation ever to walk this planet thanks to science and a culture dominated by democracy and a free market place of good, services and ideas.

      Lacking advanced medical care, it is stay healthy and you live. Get sick, and you die. Hence there is a much higher correlation between being healthy and being alive in primitive societies as compared to advanced societies.

      That sounds like common sense, but the reality is just the opposite.

      Even Neanderthals cared for their ill and you might be surprised by how well folk medicine combined with shamanic placebo can patch somebody up, if not cure them. Thus there were always many chronically ill or partial crippled people in primitive societies. The ancients understood well that an old man who could no longer hunt because he had a crippling disease but had a lifetime of knowledge was like a great library full of practical advice, good song, stories and important history. He was worth the extra labour for his upkeep.

      In just about any remote third world village, without medical access, almost every second child will be suffering one or more infections, fungal, parasitical, bacterial or viral. Low level chronic morbidity will also be common among adults. We aren’t even talking about physical wounds from accidents that heal, often improperly without medical care, crippling bone conditions due to various kind of dietary deficiencies, bone fractures healed badly, fused joints, eyes, digits and teeth lost that would have been easily saved with an antibiotic or minor surgery. Nor are we talking about the cultural changes that science can bring to a primitive village. Little things like washing your hands after toilet, boiling drinking water, avoiding insect bites and simple balanced dietary rules can reduce child mortality rates by half overnight.

      Fact is, we Australians should get out more. Just to our north are vast archipelagos of the most beautiful tropical islands populated by a friendly and handsome people. Go out the back of, say Sulawesi or hike the mountains of Sumatra visiting remote villages and live among the people for a few weeks or months. When you come home again, you’ll appreciate better what modern technological evolution really means to your health. Oh, and you might well bring home a wise idea or two from the people you visited as well.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Lionell Griffith

        Sorry, that was not the argument from me. Banana has his own argument to worry about. I was comparing the LIVING population statistics and not the population dead or alive. I simply said that only the healthy tend to survive in primitive cultures while the sick and infirm tend to die young. In advanced cultures with advanced medicine a higher fraction of the sick and infirm continue to live BECAUSE of advanced medical care and thereby make up a larger proportion of the LIVING population than in primitive cultures.

        That does not counter the fact that living in a primitive culture is brutal, disease ridden, requires unremitting work just to produce enough to stay alive, and usually quite brief. Few survive to a ripe old age. Those who do were either very lucky or had superior genetics or both. The sick and infirm generally don’t have much of a chance to survive beyond their illness or infirmity. There is simply not enough wealth producing capacity to maintain them even if there was a will to do so. Hence, if they were maintained, they would likely take others with them.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          wes george

          Oh, sorry, Lionell.

          I though you were saying that in a living population in a primitive society there were fewer people who exhibit morbidity than in a modern Western society, because all the sick people died quite quickly without modern medicine, whereas all sort of infirmities can be managed in modern societies so we have a lot more sick people. And that’s just not true. In primitive societies many more people are carrying an illness, disability of some kind or parasitic infection than in the modern world.

          It is very true that more people who get sick in modern societies survive their illness completely cured. So there are far more completely cured survivors of an illness in a modern society than in a primitive one. Yet, even with the much larger number of people who survive handicapped by morbidity because of modern medicine there is still far more morbidity in a primitive population per capita.

          Question: Is your subtextual reasoning that by keeping alive all sort of “genetically weak” people that would have died in a primitive society and thus allowing them to go on to reproduce, modern society is polluting the human gene pool? Do you believe that modern society has slowed, stopped or even perverted the forces of natural selection in humans, therefore we are no longer evolving as a species?

          * * *

          But now you’ve introduced another common myth. Primitive life “required unremitting work just to stay alive” is overstating how hard primitives really worked, especially for hunter/gatherers in non-marginal areas, such as the coast of eastern Australia. With population densities as high as one person per 2 km along the Coff Harbour coast, the native peoples just sat on top of middens eating shellfish and singing songs for most of the year. Then just for fun they’d walk the 300 km “song path” to the north for the huge Bunya nut festivals, which was also a several month long party/feast. They sure had a lot of spare time for ritual, dance and song. This same kind of freedom existed for lots of ancient peoples, at least before agriculture. Sure, it’s easy to over romanticise noble savage party-life, but it’s also easy overemphasise how tough existence was too.

          Another thing I would call you on, is that there was a lack of will or wealth to care for the sick or elderly. Primitive people were just like us in their capacity to love and cherish members of their family. Furthermore, just because someone was old or sick doesn’t mean they couldn’t be usefully employed by the tribal unit. As I pointed out early, the elderly are especially cherished in primitive societies as repositories of wisdom, practical, historical and spiritual. Since most people in primitive societies are young, the few elderly constitute the “institutional memory” of the tribe, which is very important to the survival of the group.

          The idea that “few survived to a ripe old age” misses the relative meaning of ripe old age. Few people today survive to a ripe old age, if by ripe old age you mean 85. In a hunter gatherer society where women begin child birthing very young and great grandfather is 37, the meaning of ripe old age isn’t what it is for us.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Lionell Griffith

            Thank you. You make my case. If a great grandfather is 37 and “ripe”, there must have been a huge die off of people prior to reaching the “ripe old age” of 37. I am exactly twice that age and still going strong.

            I have had cataracts removed and replaced with IOLs in both eyes and wear glasses to correct my vision to close to 20/20. Otherwise I would have been legally blind. I have type II diabetes controlled well enough that I have normal blood glucose levels otherwise I might be blind and/or a multiple amputee. I have hypertension corrected to the level of a teenager due to modern drugs otherwise I might have had a heart attack, reduced function kidneys, or a debilitating stroke – assuming I was lucky enough not to die. The list continues.

            Without the advent of sulfa drugs during the late 1930′s, I would not have lived past my fourth year of life. It and O2 therapy saved my life from double pneumonia. Undoubtedly, the various vaccinations I have received have also greatly extended my life.

            In a primitive society, my mother would not have lived to carry me to term or even get pregnant with me. So I would not have gotten the chance to die of pneumonia and be counted as once being alive.

            I suggest nearly everyone who lives past 65 or so can recount a similar story. They and I are alive BECAUSE of technological civilization even with and in spite of our chronic infirmities. Living in a primitive society is not a viable choice for almost all of us of an advanced age beyond 37.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Mark D.

            An interesting discussion. To add weight to some part of this, I also likely wouldn’t be here if it weren’t for modern medical care. I do think in order for the numbers to work out, most people over the age of 35 should have a story like ours.


            Report this

            00

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    New TED video: How to topple a dictator.

    Basically, people power can win even against astonishing militarised odds, but only if the people
    A) keep unity,
    B) plan battles they can win, and
    C) discipline themselves to only non-violent protest.

    May be useful in our own country one day, perhaps against the eco-fascist kleptocrats? :(

    —-
    In the meantime, where did all that talk go about a High-court challenge to the constitutionality of the carbon tax?
    Is our GG bought and paid for, or do we still have the Royal Commission option?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    observa

    We avoided the train wreck but unfortunately had a wee crash on the freeway.
    Well not so much the freeway as highway robbery, given the usual annual kneesup by the narcissists at taxpayer expense.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    DougS

    A paradigm shift is required that could lead to a climate-resilient infrastructure, which would ensure climate justice for mother earth, allowing equitable access to global atmospheric space, so that climate debt could fund the building of a low-carbon society!

    Don’t ask me what this means – I’ve just tried to squeeze in as many (Cop 17) eco-loon buzzwords as possible into a sentence.

    Looks impressive doesn’t it?……………..OK, maybe not!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Phillip Bratby

    The UK’s Minister for Energy and Climate Change, the looney Huhne, was there to the bitter end, hailing it a “huge step forward” and “a great success for European diplomacy”. He just about makes it into the lower decile of z-graders.

    See his intellect in action at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8949102/Chris-Huhne-Durban-climate-deal-a-success-for-European-diplomacy.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    The most striking thing about global warming since I first started looking into it is the complete absence of any sense of shame in anyone involved with it.

    Durban is a new low in infantile thinking — childish reasoning — yet they’re so eager to put their names on it. I don’t get it.

    How do you fight this? Forget being sued by a rock and start figuring out how to talk to one. And that rock wants control over you but has no more than a rock’s understanding of the world around it. We speak intelligently to them and they go, “Gurgle…gurgle…gurgle,” and spit up their pablum.

    Thank God they’re incompetent. Unfortunately their dead weight drags the rest of us down with them.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Cyril of Gladstone

      This is easy to expalin. You set up a UN committe staffed by bureaucrats and eco loons from Greenpeace ect and you make Mother Earth a legal ward of this committe. This committe then decide all of the questions associated with what its ward wants. This is the type of fantasy that you hear put about wherever leftists gather. Think about the nonsense that came out of the Occuparasite movement.


      Report this

      00

    • #

      Next the ‘Movement’ (think bowel) will be demanding marriage rights for gay rocks!


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Mervyn Sullivan

    All that has effectively been agreed in Durban, is they will hold more climate conferences in an attempt to try and get a binding agreement with the world’s largest economies… countries that have moved on and will never agree to a Kyoto Mark II.

    I cannot put it in any simpler when I say they’ve simply taken an elephant’s turd and wrapped it up in Christmas present, pretending its a gift from Santa with good tidings, comfort and joy. But as we all know, an elephant’s turd is still a turd. And nobody is really ever going to touch it!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bernal

    “The recognition and defence of the rights of Mother Earth to ensure harmony between humanity and nature.”

    More like:
    The recognition and defence of the rights of Mother Earth to ensure harm to humanity.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Grant (NZ)

      Ain’t that right.

      She can be a bit cranky, even malevolent. Ask the people of Christchurch.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Llew Jones

        One ancient reincarnated religion is telling us to suck up to old ME. Another popular religion tells us humans to have dominion over her and subdue her probably because it’s always been obvious she can be a very cantankerous, nasty old bitch toward humans, as you mention.

        I wonder if the Durban crowd is thinking of re-instituting human sacrifices to keep the old girl happy. I’ve got a few suggestions if they are.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Garry

    #5 Peter Miller –

    You have those numbers and the mechanisms nailed pretty neatly.

    I had several professional interactions with the World Bank and a few NGOs a decade or more ago, and what you’ve illustrated is exactly what happens in that perverse universe.

    Internally, all these bodies operate from a foundation of nepotism, corruption, and cronyism. Bribery and graft are the foremost drivers on the recipient side. I’ve seen ministerial-level officials making third-world salaries who send their kids to foreign private schools, and have heard of other officials who begin all contract negotiations by openly stating the bribes that will be required (and these are non-trivial sums). It’s all pretty shameless.

    As for the “consultants,” they typically lead rather luxuriant lifestyles with chauffeured SUVs, personal home staff, private schools for the kids, tropical vacations, and on it goes. Most of their personal expenses are fully-paid under the “development” contract. The luxurious perks of COP17 are a shining example of how things actually work.

    From top to bottom it’s an obviously corrupt, greedy, and useless system. As you noted, most of the world’s “development” funds don’t actually support anything resembling “development.”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jake

    Well, for all the multitudes who represent their country at the UN on a daily basis it certainly was a great result, they still have a job. Phew, don’t have to pack the bags yet honey we can stay in the big apple till 2020.
    For those who come to those annual get togethers straight from their home countries it is great too, they can already plan their next holiday talkfest.

    As much as we don’t like John Brookes he can also see that it should be clear by then that if the current trend continues it will all blow over and otherwise, sorry John small chance in my opinion, it should by then show that there is some sort of relationship between CO2 and warming, Yeah Right.
    Are you starting to waver John, that was a very fair statement of you.

    One country that will end up paying truckloads if all this goes ahead and also stands to loose the most in % land terms is the Netherlands, being one of the 23. If it is all to be correct what the computers are predicting then they will pay for the developing world to stay afloat and keep their head above water, yet because of the way they live they will flood themselves. Well about 35% odd, more according to the IPCC. But what is really interesting here is that despite that it should be enormously important to them, the COP meetings, and the outcomes, that is, they could not care less about it all and sent a very low level delegation to Durban.
    So we can draw 3 conclusions from this:
    1 – they can’t be bothered with wasting more money on these talk shows, being of dutch heritage myself I can relate to how much they hate spending money on things that do not produce results. What is it again the dutch always say first: How Much!!!!!!!!
    The dutch Haka is the one where they go through that whole slapping exercise just to find their wallet, why anyone thinks they can find it for this purpose is beyond me.
    2 – they know that the climate is the climate and has nothing to do with what we are belching into the air in the form of CO2. Already some years ago one of their more prominent scientists advised the government that any sea level rise had nothing to do with AGW, and he could not see any acceleration. Of course this did not get much attention in the media. But probably did help to make sure that the wallet stays closed and hidden.
    3 – all of the above

    But then not many, if any, of the 23 sent people who could make decisions.
    Perhaps they were all there to make an excursion to the Maldives while it is still above water. Who knows.

    Good news too is that this site and others similar to this will continue to be important, we may not all be scientists but no one can become complacent yet.
    The non believers are winning, climate is on our side.
    I am going to put money in Jo’s tip jar because we do all want her to continue this site and I just found my wallet.
    A great week everyone, things are looking up.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Grant (NZ)

    “there will be no commodification [whatever that may be: it is not in the dictionary and does not deserve to be] of the functions of nature, therefore no carbon market will be developed with that purpose”.

    Then the NZ ETS should be terminated. It is merely a device for redistribution of wealth. Even the most avid supporters, I could probably find quotes from Government Ministers, stated that it would not make a jot of difference to the climate (due to our relatively small emissions and our location on the globe) but that it was merely symbolic.

    But essentially it makes CO2 a trade-able commodity – nothing more – nothing less.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    “The real action behind the posters of parrots and pleas to save pygmy corals, or spotted limpets is the plea to make some unelected bureaucrats the totalitarian Kings of The World”

    New World Orders have a history of ending unpleasantly.

    However with the UNFCCC/UNIPCC push being anti-carbon, I guess there may be a lot more fissile material lying around by the time “the disconnect from the masses” comes home to roost.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bruce

    Looks like even Greenpeace doesn’t like the “get out”clause in the Durban agreement.

    “The grim news is that the blockers lead by the US have succeeded in inserting a vital get-out clause that could easily prevent the next big climate deal being legally binding….”

    http://www.greenpeace.org/africa/en/News/news/Politicians-Listen-to-the-Polluters-at-UN-climate-talks/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mike

    Julia
    I see our brothers across the ditch are finally waking up to the climate ruse, and are not agreeing to sell the farm in Durban. They are not supporting the block out clause.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John F. Hultquist

    “Partridge in a Pear Tree”

    Okay, I’ve got a pear tree and quail – will one of them do?

    You were just kidding? That’s not part of the deal? Shucks!

    And that is the only part possible. Hope is not a plan!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ross

    It looks like there has been large amounts of PR spin in these agreements/announcements.
    Here is a a comment from a WUWT thread. The Aljazeera article is simlar to the AAP article but with a few interesting additions

    There’s a bit more detail in this article:

    http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2011/12/20111210201555253969.html#.TuQZ9t9CBqg.reddit

    IMHO the choice quote that should relieve your confusion about a lack of a paper you can read is:

    “However, key components of Sunday’s accord remain to be hammered out, and observers say the task will be arduous. Thorny issues include the still-undefined legal status of the accord and apportioning cuts on emissions among rich and poor countries.”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bruce D Scott

    Thank you Jo, “crimes against endangered wind farms”may be a joke, but oh so true.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Off topic. The last three weeks I have endured every business persons’ nightmare…had all my business communications disconnected!

    No reason was given so the Communications Ombudsman will get to the bottom of it and of course I will be dragging the company in question through the courts as they have already admitted liability by offering me a settlement. A pretty nice settlement too but I want to burn them like they have done to many of their customers.

    Now, back to contacting people, clients and organisations to re-establish my cyber connections and profiles. No fun!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Crakar24

    Spoiler alert: This is another dagger through the heart of the AGW monster (believers beware)

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/11/topsy-turvey-nature-climate-change/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    brc

    So – can we find out what the status is on the Kyoto protocol? The AAP snippet kind of alludes to it being extended, but I haven’t really seen anything else that confirms it.

    If it had been extended, surely the papers et al would be leading with ‘Kyoto extended to 2015′.

    I would expect Greg Combet would be crowing about it on the news.

    The way I read the announcements was that ‘a framework to discuss the possibiltiy of starting new talks for a new Kyoto protocol had to be started by 2015, and implemented from 2020′.

    The distinct lack of nobodies (in world terms) at this conference pretty much confirmed to me that it’s not being taken seriously, and is about as binding as a bunch of kids passing a no-spanking law in their cubbyhouse.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    “Fortunately, what’s left of the UN strategic team is even lower caliber than B-grade, beyond Z, somewhere into hexadecimal.”

    What does that mean? Hexadecimal doesn’t actually invent numbers, and at a superficial level Z in the alpahbet would be a lower ranking than 1F (26 vs 16). Ahh loading games on a BBC B, thanks for that useless knowledge.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    ROM

    Biblical beliefs
    “God created the world in six days and on the seventh he rested”

    CAGW beliefs;
    From AAP;
    “Coming after weeks of unsuccessful effort to resolve the issue, Nkoana-Mashabane gave Natarajan and European Commissioner Connie Hedegaard 10 minutes to find a solution, with hundreds of delegates milling around them.

    They needed 50 minutes.”

    Given 10 minutes to save the world and they took 50 minutes.

    Seems pretty slovenly and lackadaisical to me!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tim

    No joy for the warmists here, but: a step forward for the global elitists. Those who would destroy sovereignty, and incrementally increase their power to tax and control the Western World. Moving toward world government – so not really a time to rejoice, I think.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Let’s inject some perspective into this latest decision from Durban.

    Copenhagen was the place that they hoped to find a replacement for The Kyoto Protocol, something that failed so comprehensively, because of the nature of ‘Kyoto’ itself.

    However, to save face, they had to bring out something and proclaim that as ‘a wonderful initiative’, which in fact was equal to almost nothing.

    The same happened at Cancun.

    The same happened at Durban.

    Nothing to replace ‘Kyoto’.

    All they could come up with was a statement that Kyoto would be extended ….. while they work on that replacement.

    For all those out there who think this is a good thing, I’m afraid you will be sorely disappointed.

    For all you people who may be disappointed that the final communique says that Kyoto will be extended, this is a ‘nothing’ agreement.

    Big call from me you say.

    Not really.

    You need to understand the nature of the original Kyoto.

    It was signed up to by 192 Countries in all, and now that number has risen to 194. Even the U.S. signed up to it. However, that first signature meant virtually nothing, almost along the lines of calling ‘Present’ when your Country’s name was called.

    By far the most important thing was that second signature.

    All those Countries took Kyoto back to their Governments and then voted on it at home, and then if they agreed to be bound by Kyoto, then they added that vital second signature.

    Australia did not add that second signature until Rudd signed at Bali in 2007.

    The U.S. has never added that second signature, the only Country still not to sign.

    Now, those 194 Countries were divided off as I have often mentioned, and of that total, 154 need do nothing at all, other than report their emissions.

    23 of the remaining 40 Countries are where the really ‘heavy lifting’ has to be done, lower their emissions, (to a level 5 to 7% lower than what they were in 1990) introduce an ETS or equivalent, construct renewables to replace CO2 emitting power plants, pay all their own costs, and then also pay ALL the costs of those other 154 Countries.

    Easy to see why it was such an easy thing to commit to. (especially for those 154)

    However, now the 23 realise just exactly what Kyoto actually does mean.

    Where does that leave us now with this final communique from Durban, saying that Kyoto is extended.

    Two words.

    LEGALLY BINDING!

    The only legally binding part of Kyoto was that second signature.

    That expires at the end of 2012, no matter what. That has not been extended, or cannot until those same 23 Countries sign back on.

    China and India are part of the 154 Countries, and nothing will see them willingly move from there to be added to the 23 Countries who ‘foot the whole bill’.

    The U.S. never signed up in the first place, so they will not willingly sign up to any extension.

    Therein lies the problem, as some would see it.

    The World’s largest emitters don’t want any change, and therein lies the (very convenient) ‘out’ for Australia, as Combet alluded to, saying Australia would not sign unless those others came on board.

    Other Countries have already flagged that they will not be signing up to any extension of Kyoto, er, conveniently Countries from the short list of 23 Countries.

    So, we are effectively back at square one.

    Nothing came out of Durban save a ‘face saving’ announcement to at least give the impression that something was achieved.

    23 Countries can now just sit on their hands and just wait for Kyoto to expire at the end of next year, and they are in effect then off the hook, because now that they know exactly what Kyoto really calls for, nobody in their right mind would commit their Country to that again.

    It’s all just spin.

    Those who attended (Combet included) will return to their home Countries, saying that something good has been achieved at Durban, but in talks with their Government, they will be secretly smiling, knowing that if they have ‘home grown’ legislation in place, then they only have to wait until the end of 2012, and they can keep that vast bulk of money all for themselves.

    Combet will be saying (and wait for it, because it’s not a difficult thing to predict) that Durban shows conclusively that Australia was right to introduce its CO2 Tax Clean Energy Package.

    What was achieved at Durban was the equivalent of that first signature for the original Kyoto.

    Their Country’s name was called and they replied ‘present’.

    They may ‘say’ that Kyoto has been extended, but in 2012 it expires.

    All that will be left is the name.

    No equivalent for Kyoto will get up, even by 2020.

    Tony.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      pattoh

      Perhaps for the next election he ought to bear the monica – Kyoto Kev so nobody has any illusions why rises in fuel, electricity & living costs in general are making us feel so much better about ourselves & our future!


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Ross

      Thanks Tony , that answers my question above @ 6.1.1.1
      Also it shows that all the fanfare in the announcement just allowed the talkfest people to go home thinking they had achieved something.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Crakar24

        Also it shows that all the fanfare in the announcement just allowed the talkfest people to go home thinking they had achieved something.

        No it allowed them to go home and tell *YOU* they had achieved something.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      MattB

      Pretty hard to argue with this summary Tony.


      Report this

      00

      • #

        Thank you Matt.

        I would have posted this last night closer to the top of the Comments section, but here in Rockhampton yesterday, we had a pretty big Electrical storm, and it put the power out, and it stayed out for more than 6 hours.

        20Km West of here, Stanwell kept humming away, but the network here was down, well into the evening.

        It was a taste of what a future might look like, and some of you are saying that when I say this, I’m being overly dramatic, but you go without power for even a short time, and you realise how much a staple of life it really is.

        Not just in the home, but in every facet of daily life.

        Close down those CO2 emitting power plants, and life WILL grind to a halt.

        THAT is the end result of what Kyoto calls for, because there is nothing that can replace the power that large scale coal fired power delivers.

        Only when the Australian Government actually starts to close down those large scale power plants will I then believe that they are actually serious, but they KNOW that closing them down is political suicide.

        This of itself PROVES conclusively that the decisions they make have nothing whatsoever to do with the environment.

        They know this.

        All they need do is use the Science as an excuse, because to actually have the courage to stand by what they say and do will virtually ensure their downfall.

        They NEED the money raised from this, not for any altruistic notion of saving the environment, not to construct boutique and totally useless renewable power plants, as much as they serve the photo op purpose, not to lower CO2 emissions, but just to bolster their bottom line ….. a purely political purpose only.

        Still, going without power here for more 6 hours did have one nice result, even in the candle light.

        Salmon and Lettuce sandwiches on fresh white bread with real Butter. Mmm! Life really is good!

        Tony.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          jl

          A big thankyou, TonyfromOz. I try to keep informed about these things, but I have never seen such a simple and detailed explanation of Kyoto until I read your comments ( now and previous ). I had no idea what we were signed up for, courtesy Rudd.
          If I read you correctly, you think our government will use this get-out-clause to disentangle itself from Kyoto?
          I hope you are right, but based on previous evidence…?


          Report this

          00

          • #

            jl,

            Us, and maybe, say, 22 other Countries, all going ‘dum de dum dum dum’, well, we tried.

            Yeah, and, er, wouldn’t it be cynical of me to say how lucky Australia was to have ‘home grown’ legislation in place prior to Kyoto expiring, coming into force late next year, er, just in time.

            Wait till the bovine excrement hits the rotating wind generating device, and a ‘savvy’ journalist asks a ‘leading’ question about all of this.

            I can see the reply now. “Look, over there, isn’t that (insert celebrity name here!)”

            Tony.


            Report this

            00

    • #
      Crakar24

      At some point the next COP XVIII, XVIIII, XX etc will be cancelled when this happens it will be time to put down the rifles but until then we must remain vigilant.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Thank you for that.

      It shows that the information I based my comment at #6 on was correct after all.

      I don’t mind admitting when I am wrong, but it is much nicer to have someone else confirm that I am right :-)

      Hmm, made my day.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Kevin Moore

      Legal versus Lawful

      It is crucial to define the difference between legal and lawful. The generic Constitution references genuine law. The present civil authorities and their courts use the word legal. Is there a difference in the meanings? The following is quoted from A Dictionary of Law 1893:

      Lawful. In accordance with the law of the land; according to the law; permitted, sanctioned, or justified by law. “Lawful” properly implies a thing conformable to or enjoined by law; “Legal”, a thing in the form or after the manner of law or binding by law. A writ or warrant issuing from any court, under color of law, is a “legal” process however defective. See legal. [Bold emphasis added]

      Legal. Latin legalis. Pertaining to the understanding, the exposition, the administration, the science and the practice of law: as, the legal profession, legal advice; legal blanks, newspaper. Implied or imputed in law. Opposed to actual

      “Legal” looks more to the letter [form/appearance], and “Lawful” to the spirit [substance/content], of the law. “Legal” is more appropriate for conformity to positive rules of law; “Lawful” for accord with ethical principle. “Legal” imports rather that the forms [appearances] of law are observed, that the proceeding is correct in method, that rules prescribed have been obeyed; “Lawful” that the right is actful in substance, that moral quality is secured. “Legal” is the antithesis of equitable, and the equivalent of constructive. 2 Abbott’s Law Dic. 24. [Bold emphasis added]

      Legal matters administrate, conform to, and follow rules. They are equitable in nature and are implied (presumed) rather than actual (express). A legal process can be defective in law. This accords with the previous discussions of legal fictions and color of law. To be legal, a matter does not follow the law. Instead, it conforms to and follows the rules or form of law. This may help you to understand why the Federal and State Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure are cited in every court petition so as to conform to legal requirements of the specific juristic persons named, e.g., “STATE OF GEORGIA” or the “U.S. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT” that rule the courts.

      Lawful matters are ethically enjoined in the law of the land—the law of the people—and are actual in nature, not implied. This is why whatever true law was upheld by the organic Constitution has no bearing or authority in the present day legal courts. It is impossible for anyone in “authority” today to access, or even take cognizance of, true law since “authority” is the “law of necessity,” 12 USC 95.

      Therefore, it would appear that the meaning of the word “legal” is “color of law,” a term which Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, defines as:

      Color of law. The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state, is action taken under “color of law.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, page 241.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      brc

      Well, this was my take on it as well. But I wonder why it was reported as ‘Kyoto extended to 2015′? Journalistic incompetence? Wishful thinking?

      I did hear on the radio Christine Milne having a right old whinge, which always make me happier knowing that she is sad. But then I thought – when was she ever happy about anything? She wouldn’t be happy until we were all living in a yurt and paying climate taxes to passing bands of Greenpeace (sic) raiders.

      Meanwhile, I think if you stopped the average Australian in the street and asked them what just happened at Durban, they’d probably guess at a cricket match.

      As for the Carbon Tax – already yesterdays news as far as the media and the government is concerned. IT will take a concerted effort to keep opposition to the tax boiling along until it can be repealed, and an extra special effort to hold the Opposition to their promise of repealing the tax before the election, especially with feeble-minded carbon zealots like Greg Hunt still sniffing around. I wouldn’t be surprised to see a faction of the Liberal party try and remove Tony Abbott to keep the carbon trading dream alive. People should contact their local Liberal party member/candidate/representative and let them know in no uncertain terms that support is conditional on repealing the carbon tax.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    pat

    was listening to 2UE last nite, only to hear the newscast begin with the Coalition’s Greg Hunt being furious that the Durban deal DIDN’T GO FAR ENOUGH. here he is again:

    12 Dec: ABC: AM: Opposition says Durban climate talks a major failure
    GREG HUNT: Unfortunately, what has occurred in Durban is a deferral until 2020. There was going to be an agreement in 2012 and then 2015. Now we have a possible agreement in 2020 way beyond the parameters of the carbon tax modelling…
    ADAM HARVEY: Surely any agreement though is always going to be a compromise plan and this is an important step.
    GREG HUNT: Well, any agreement is better than nothing. That is absolutely the case. Unfortunately what has occurred in Durban is that the major economies have deferred action. The carbon tax modelling collapses as of this moment. It should be redone immediately because there are deep and real and profound consequences to household budgets and for the effectiveness of our own system as jobs and emissions go straight to China and India and Indonesia.
    ADAM HARVEY: Scrapping the carbon tax though will make it even harder for Australia to meet its obligations when a deal is eventually solid.
    GREG HUNT: The Government’s best case argument now is that the United States won’t have a carbon tax but strangely can meet its targets without a carbon tax…
    http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2011/s3388580.htm

    meanwhile, almost all MSM is reporting Durban as a SUCCESS. once again, Orwell is rolling in his grave.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    handjive

    The legal architecture of a $100 billion-a-year Green Climate Fund will also be established to finance climate change adaptation for developing countries.

    If financing is direct, Australia’s contribution is expected to be between $2bn and $3bn a year.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    could someone explain this?

    11 Dec: AFP: Durban climate deal leaves difficult road ahead
    The so-called Durban Package will, for the first time, bring all greenhouse-gas users into a common legal regime under the UN flag, in the aim of cranking the carbon combat into higher gear…
    This goal dates back a decade and, ironically, is rooted in the argument of former US president George W. Bush, a bogeyman to many in the green movement…
    Today, Bush’s rationale has prevailed…
    http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iI3mS6XznKHUjdz6OKaYVrYS9CiQ?docId=CNG.83b864429e5546a58ebb4887d6972217.61


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Crakar24

    RSS has produced its November data and it has landed on the catastrophic number of +0.033 (how you can get to 3 decimal places i do not know) anyway it is not catastrophic for me but for JB and his ilk and all the fraudsters pushing this scam.

    So best we dont mention this again OK.

    Cheers and Xmas beers

    Crakar


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Truthseeker

      Crakar,

      Pardon my ignorance, but who or what is RSS and what is the “November data” that has arrived at a specific value?

      Thanks.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Crakar24

        http://aqua.nasa.gov/about/instrument_amsu.php

        You can go to http://www.drroyspencer.com

        He does the monthly updates although he is a bit late for November.

        This is how they measure atmospheric temps and whilst it does have some problems (orbital drift etc) it is a lot better than surface measurements and it takes out “diddling of the books” factor by Hansen et al

        Hope this helps


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Richard C (NZ)

        RSS Analysis of MSU and AMSU Data

        Remote Sensing Systems, in collaboration with Dian Seidel of the NOAA Air Resources Laboratory, is funded by the NOAA Climate and Global Change Program to perform an end-to-end analysis of the tropospheric and stratospheric data from the MSU and AMSU series of microwave sounders. The scientists working on the microwave sounding data are Carl Mears and Frank Wentz at Remote Sensing Systems. So far, we have merged the Channel 2 and 4 brightness temperature data from the nine MSU instruments, and Channel 3 brightness temperature data from NOAA-10, NOAA-11, NOAA-12, and NOAA-14, instruments into single brightness temperature datasets for each channel. The merging process requires careful adjustment of the MSU observations to account for drifts caused by orbital decay and changes in local observing time. Then, intersatellite offsets and errors caused by changes in the temperature of the calibration sources are precisely determined. Significant drifts in Channel 3 data from NOAA-6 and NOAA-9 made it impossible to accurately extend the analysis to times before December 1986 for this channel.

        http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html


        Report this

        00

  • #
    pat

    Carbon Trading Goes Mobile in World First Deployment
    Global Carbon Credit Trading Platform Mobilised with BlinkMobile and EcoView Global
    Sydney, 12 December 2011 – Carbon Trade Exchange (CTX), an Australian-based carbon credits (offsets) trading marketplace, today expanded its service for brokers and corporate clients with the launch of a new, mobile service for accessing the CTX trading platform.
    The service provides carbon buyers and sellers with access to the exchange anywhere in the world to buy carbon credits…

    The mobilisation of the CTX data will be of significant benefit to brokers who need to access up-to-the-minute pricing when out on the road or when meeting with clients. The ability to carry out on-the-spot trades will enable brokers to bring a new immediacy to their client relationships, effectively consummating sales within minutes rather than in days or weeks. Corporate clients will also benefit as emissions managers are now free to calculate emissions offset requirements, research and identify the most appropriate lowest-cost environmental compliance alternatives at any time or place that most suits them…

    Wayne Sharpe, CEO of CTX, says, “The emissions market is young but it is quickly going to become much more volatile and there will be an increasing number of purchasing opportunities for companies that want to participate in the carbon sector. As in any market, knowing what products are on the market and the price of those products is going to be an important factor in obtaining competitive advantage.”
    The CTX trading platform operates as a cloud-based service and was created using Microsoft technologies…

    ***(Wayne Sharpe)“It’s incredible to think that a broker, CEO, CFO or head of sustainability could be on the beach in Australia or in the South of France buying carbon credits, real time, from South America or Africa, in an end-to-end electronic transaction. That really is cool. We believe that the mobility we’ve announced today is the future of carbon trading.”
    The new technology is live for Carbon Trade exchange members today.
    About Carbon Trade Exchange
    Carbon Trade Exchange is a global carbon credit trading exchange…
    http://www.prwire.com.au/pr/26462/carbon-trading-goes-mobile-in-world-first-deployment


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    nice to see Enron crop up a couple of times, from both sides of the fence!

    Carbon Trade Exchange: Our People
    Wayne Sharpe, Founder / CEO and Chairman
    Wayne has led Bartercard from its inception 19 years ago to its current position as a global leader in the barter industry operating from over 120 offices today with some 3,000 personnel. Bartercard is the world’s largest non cash credit unit exchange and has operated in 20 countries.
    After selling Bartercard’s flagship operation in Australia in 2007, Wayne attended the UN climate change conference in Bali, and has shifted his focus and entrepreneurial skills to helping save our planet. Wayne is the major shareholder in S.T.O.P. (Stop Trashing Our Planet Limited) which is the parent company of CTX and will be full time CEO of CTX during its first 2 to 3 years…

    Lloyd Fleming, Managing Director, European Operations
    Lloyd’s commercial experience began over 20 years ago with a small commercial law firm. In 1993 he moved to Standard Chartered to help establish a market risk management function. Progressing through a number of credit and operational risk roles, he moved to Enron Corporation in early 2000 and gained a breadth of experience across electricity, gas, broadband and metals trading.
    Returning to Australia in September 2002, Lloyd worked for PwC in financial risk management before to moving to ANZ into a strategic risk role. Lloyd’s growing interest in sustainability and climate change ultimately led to his becoming a director in ANZ’s Institutional Sustainability team for two years. In this role he worked on developing revenue opportunities for financing based on climate change impacts, carbon markets and energy efficiency…

    Nathan Rockliff, Chief Operating Officer & Chief Legal Counsel
    Nathan is qualified in Corporate Finance with the Securities & Investment Institute in the UK, and is a co-founder of Ventura Climate Capital, a boutique environmental investment firm assisting clean-tech and renewable energy projects accessing the market place.
    Nathan has been instrumental in the strategic development of CTX since it commenced progress to and since commercialisation, involved in design of rules, contracts, operational systems and technology. He is also a regular speaker at Carbon events internationally…

    Peter Fusaro, Non-Executive Director
    Peter is Chairman of Global Change Associates a financial services advisory in New York and is the best selling author of What Went Wrong at Enron as well as 15 other books on energy and the environmental financial markets..
    http://www.carbontradexchange.com/our-people.php


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    11 Dec: Guardian: Damian Carrington: Climate deal: A guarantee our children will be worse off than us
    Huhne added, that in his opinion, “investors will see this as a clear signal” to back the green economy…
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2011/dec/11/durban-climate-change-conference-2011-climate-change

    thought Emirates was incredibly rich already!

    12 Dec: The National: April Yee: Emirates to profit in global fight against climate change
    Dubai is to double its efforts to make money from cutting greenhouse gas emissions after a landmark deal in the global fight against climate change…
    “The industry woke up with a big fat smile this morning,” said Ivano Iannelli, the chief executive officer of the Dubai Carbon Centre of Excellence (DCCE). “Starting from today, I would invest again.”…
    But in the past six months the price of the UN credits has fallen from EU13.64 a tonne to EU4.91 on the ICE Exchange in Europe, reflecting pessimism about the future of Kyoto and eroding the rationale for continuing to develop such projects.
    “The whole market is looking for guidance and certainty,” said Aaron Bielenberg, a founder of the Clean Energy Business Council, a trade group based in the UAE. “There still remain a lot of low-hanging fruit.”…
    A 500km pipeline network to direct captured carbon from smelters and power plants to Abu Dhabi oilfields and plans to retrofit the emirate’s oil and gas infrastructure also stand to benefit from yesterday’s climate agreement. Masdar, the Abu Dhabi Government-owned company behind the carbon capture network and the majority of the emirate’s UN carbon credit applications, did not respond to requests for comment…

    At least $12bn for renewables, efficient electricity grids and carbon capture projects is needed in the Middle East within the next decade, estimates Maher Chebbo, the regional vice president for utilities at SAP, a German software provider.
    “Now it looks like things are moving in the right direction,” he said.
    http://www.thenational.ae/business/markets/emirates-to-profit-in-global-fight-against-climate-change


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Crakar24

    Icecap version of RSS data plus a lot more

    http://www.icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog


    Report this

    00

  • #

    If this doesn’t make you sick to your stomach, then yours is made from cast iron.

    Greg Combet has now had added to his Portfolio the Industrial Relations Ministry, so now he is The Minister for Industrial Relations, Climate Change, and Energy Efficiency.

    Industrial Relations is quite obviously a major portfolio, and one that Combet, as an ex Secretary of the the ACTU will have some expertise in, if you see the point.

    So, now it seems that the Legislation has successfully been shepherded through and into legislation, well, that, er, Climate Change thing can now go onto the back burner.

    And energy efficiency?

    Oh, please, give me strength!

    How transparent is Labor to announce this while Combet is still recovering from Durban induced Circadian Disrhythmia, and what kind of fools do they take us for?

    This indicates to me just how serious they really are about reducing emissions.

    Virtually all of Combet’s efforts will now be going into Industrial Relations.

    Tony.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Crakar24

      Tony,

      The tax is and land mined time to move on to bigger and better things, knowing Combet (not that i do, only met him once and shaking his hand was like grappling with a cold dead fish) he will rightly f*&^k up IR as well after all he f*&^ked up defence pretty well.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      brc

      Well, it’s still probably not enough to save Combet from losing his seat whenever the next election is.

      Just remember this guy has never run a business in his life. He has never been involved with energy or energy markets, and was never even an environmentalist.

      Labor are just cleaning out the remnants of Rudd’s regime and hardening up the control by the Labor left.

      Mind you they couldn’t knock off too many people so they expanded the ministry instead. Another couple of million down the drain for letterhead changes, website rebrandings etc etc etc.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      That is the way these things are handled inside the bubble.

      You never admit a failure. Instead, you “reward” someone “for success” by giving them another portfolio, and then allow the others to languish until the next term of Government, when they can quietly be disappeared.

      This is not quite a cynical as it seems. Ministers take an oath of office for each term of a Parliament, so they cannot just dump a portfolio because it is starting to smell a bit off. They have sworn to uphold it, even if it does less and less.

      If you watch the numbers, you will start to see a number of transfers of Public Servants from the departments responsible for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency into other areas, as they wind the whole thing down.

      We may be reading it wrongly, but to me this is one of the signs we have been awaiting.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Rodzki

      Tony, I think the ALP is giving Mr Combet a liferaft. Once Climate Change sinks into oblivion as an issue, he has to be able to escape elsewhere. I see it as a positive signal that the Government can see the writing on the wall.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Suggested projects to ‘Boost Food Security’ in Africa (funding to be secured from Australia’s $25m fast-start allocation):-

    1) Installation of strategically placed scarecrows in the corn patch.

    2) Procurement of a watering can, and marriage of supplemental wives to transport the extra water from the well (requires cost/benefit analysis but there are spin-offs).

    3) Mend the gap in the kraal down by the chook run.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I don’t know why people don’t understand the agreement.

    Basically, those who “agreed”, responded to an RSVP to attend future negotiations.

    Of course, if they have to stay at home to wash their hair/dog, then that would take precedence.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    SMH report: “Australia blocked a tax on bunker fuel, the carbon-heavy oil used for aviation….”


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Crakar24

      Can anyone enlighten me on

      “carbon-heavy oil used for aviation and shipping”


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Richard C (NZ)

        Shipping uses bunker oil on the open sea (heavy diesel in ports I think). You can tell when a ship switches to bunker oil by the thick black SO2 laden smoke.

        Having seen bunker oil sludge (has to be heated for it to flow) washing up on Mt Maunganui beach in NZ after the Rena hit a reef here I can assure you that they don’t use it for aviation (that’s avgas etc, the SMH don’t know the diff).

        The UN wanted to slap a levy on shipping and aviation fuels to fund the Green Climate Fund but thanks to OZ that’s off.


        Report this

        00

        • #

          Avgas is used only in piston engined aircraft.

          Avtur is used for aircraft with turbine engines, whether internal or connected to a propeller. This is Jet A, Jet A1 or Jet B, and is basically a kerosene based fuel.

          Incidentally, Avgas for aircraft is different from automobile fuel, as the Avgas still has the lead component in it, as tetraethyl lead.

          (years of pumping Avtur into Sabres, Macchi’s and Mirages and and and)

          Tony.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            I have known people use Avgas in cars.

            They go really, really, fast … while the engine holds together.

            In the RAF, they used to put a red dye in the Avgas so they could demonstrate theft, if it ever turned up in some O/R’s Austin Healy. (Apparently they never checked Officers’ cars) :-)


            Report this

            00

          • #
            BobC

            AvGas is different from auto gasoline in the following ways:

            1) It is much more stable, being refined so that nearly all the molecules are the same weight. (Auto gasoline is a mixture of different weights and tends to settle out if left for months in the tank — putting sludge into your output line.)

            2) No highway tax is assessed on it (in the US, anyway), so it is dyed such that it can be identified. Supposedly it would be a crime to drive an auto on state highways on avgas.

            3) It still uses “lead” to achieve high octane ratings.

            4) 100 and 130 octane are available (and 87 octane for older planes), so that you can use it in very high compression engines. Drag racers used to use it years ago.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            brc

            Well a relative of mine was a jet refueller. As part of the testing process, a drum of Jet A1 would be drawn off for testing purposes. Once tested, this drum was not allowed to be put back into the storage tanks.

            They soon realised that, by using the drum of test fuel and purchasing the cheap and nasty motor oil from supermarkets (the $5/5 litres kind) they could mix it together and make their own diesel, which is just a kerosene base with a lubricant added. Pretty soon a branch of my extended family all had diesel cars running this jungle juice as it basically cost $10 a drum.

            A discussion with a petroleum engineer confirmed it was OK, and that they could probably use sump oil instead of purchasing new engine oil.

            Unfortunately for them something changed and the practice stopped, but it was good while it lasted.


            Report this

            00

        • #
          crakar24

          Yes Richard i was aware that ships use a higher grade of fuel in ports and assumed this was what they were talking about but it looks like when it comes to avgas you are as much in the dark as me.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          brc

          Yes, the heavy oil used in shipping is nasty stuff. That’s why even when container ships spring a leak they leave big oil slicks of nasty sludge, because it is a very heavy oil used to run the motors.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Richard C (NZ)

          Seen at WUWT:-

          Al Gored commented on Kyoto – in the past for Canada.

          pat says:
          December 12, 2011 at 5:32 pm

          8 Dec: World Bank Urges Carbon Tax On Maritime Transportation
          http://www.leadership.ng/nga/articles/9904/2011/12/08/world_bank_urges_carbon_tax_maritime_transportation.html

          ——-

          In a truly amazing coincidence, UN climate chief Christiana Figueres’s husband works for the World Bank!

          Even more astonishing, before getting that job she was deep in the heart of the carbon trading business.

          (Just start at wiki and go from there.)


          Report this

          00

      • #
        Kevin Moore

        Something else about shipping -

        Subject: Fabulous bit of historical knowledge

        Ever wonder where the word “shit” comes from. Well here it is:

        Certain types of manure used to be transported (as everything was back then) by ship. In dry form it weighs a lot less, but once water (at sea) hit it. It not only became heavier, but the process of fermentation began again, of which a by-product is methane gas.

        As the stuff was stored below decks in bundles you can see what could (and did) happen; methane began to build up below decks and the first time someone came below at night with a lantern. BOOOOM!

        Several ships were destroyed in this manner before it was discovered what was happening.

        After that, the bundles of manure where always stamped with the term “S.H.I.T” on them which meant to the sailors to “Ship High In Transit.” In other words, high enough off the lower decks so that any water that came into the hold would not touch this volatile cargo and start the production of methane.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Grant (NZ)

        My suggestion is that Senator Milne and the SMH reporter should be sent on a flight aboard an aircraft powered by bunker fuel. (might need to get it airborne using more conventional fuel and then have the pilot switch tanks and bail out)


        Report this

        00

  • #
    pat

    Bielenberg, the Clean Energy guy in UAE, quoted in the earlier link:

    Attorneys Latham & Watkins: Aaron C. Bielenberg
    Aaron Bielenberg is an associate in the Dubai office of Latham & Watkins specializing in project finance. He has experience in various aspects of project development and finance, carbon and environmental finance and other complex commercial finance matters as well as experience in mergers & acquisitions and general corporate and securities matters…
    In recent years Mr. Bielenberg has represented Barclays, BNP Paribas, Calyon, Cogentrix, Credit Suisse, Depfa, Global Infrastructure Partners, Goldman Sachs, LS Power, Morgan Stanley, Morgan Stanley Infrastructure Fund, RREEF, Societe Generale and other sponsors, major money-center banks and financial service providers. Mr. Bielenberg was on secondment to Goldman Sachs leveraged finance group for 6 months in 2006…
    He also has served on the firm’s pro bono committee and represented a range of pro bono clients on corporate and finance matters including current representation of the United Nations Global Compact on general corporate matters.
    http://www.lw.com/Attorneys.aspx?page=AttorneyBio&attno=03930


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wes george

    I remember the climate debate back in 2007-2010.

    I remember that commenters like Louis Hissink, Graeme Bird, Cohenite, Ian Mott and lots of others presciently saw that the Global Warming scam was really all about the biggest expansion of Big Government since WWII, with a hidden socialist economic agenda, including massive wealth redistribution complete with arrogation of our God-given civil liberties, to be enforced by authoritarian anti-democratic officiousness. We in the comment sections could say out loud what our hosts, Watts, Nova, Marohasy and others had to be more circumspect about…Our worst nightmare – which we could barely articulate because it was so incredible – was that we were on the road to an Internationalist Green police state.

    Because back then the standard Warmist reply was ROTFL! Whoo Hoo! Look at the Denialist fruitcakes! Only moonbat conspiracy nutters could dream up Climate Change as a plot to impose World Government and command the global economy! It’s all about the science which is settled. Debate over. STFU.

    But now apparently it wasn’t us who dreamed up Climate Change as a plot to impose totalitarian world government. Bob Brown, the Green great leader who would end free speech in Australia told us this winter he supports One World Government, but we just yawned…Now Durban has vindicating our worse fears about Green political power. It’s real and it’s worse than we thought.

    I would like to personal thank the delegates of COP19 Durban for their gut-wrenching honesty, and for standing up for what they truly believe and represent. You blokes might not be the sharpest knives in the drawer, but you sure got nadz!


    Report this

    00

    • #
      cohenite

      wes, I honestly can’t see any progess occuring other than through litigation; this wretched government and its followers are rusted on for at least another 2 years. The NZ NIWA court action may provide a template.

      Other than that the psychology of the idiots who follow AGW is a mystery to me; no doubt they are arrogant and sanctimonious with lashings of misanthropy but what really worries me is that the human nature may be incapable of learning from other’s experiences as Owens noted:

      http://www.poetry-archive.com/o/miners.html

      It has only been since 1984 when Bayswater came on line that regular reliable electricity has been available in this nation. I can remember power shortages and black-outs but unless you are over 50 I don’t think it registers.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        I notice from todays New Zealand Herald – a newspaper, so probably wrong – that Nick Smith, the “Minister for Climate Change” (see, it is all his fault), has also been given an additional portfolio for Local Government, and dropped a couple of notches on the Cabinet pecking order.

        John Key is still saying that New Zealand will maintain its ETS, past the end of the Kyoto period, but only if other countries do the same. By “other countries”, I wonder if Australia and the EU, along with New Zealand, constitute a quorum?

        Keys words are all well and good, but the demotion of Smith says more.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    My (lengthy) take on the “Durban Platform” COP17 decision:-

    Advance unedited version

    Establishment of an Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action

    Draft decision -/CP.17

    1. Decides to extend the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention for one year in order for it to continue its work and reach the agreed outcome pursuant to decision 1/CP.13 (Bali Action Plan) through decisions adopted by the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth sessions of the Conference of the Parties, at which time the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention shall be terminated;

    2. Also decides to launch a process to develop a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change applicable to all Parties, through a subsidiary body under the Convention hereby established and to be known as the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action;

    3. Further decides that the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action; shall start its work as a matter of urgency in the first half of 2012 and shall report to future sessions of the Conference of the Parties on the progress of its work;

    4. Decides that the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action shall complete its work as early as possible but no later than 2015 in order to adopt this protocol, legal instrument or legal outcome at the twenty-first session of the Conference of the Parties and for it to come into effect and be implemented from 2020;

    5. Also decides that the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action shall plan its work in the first half of 2012, including, inter alia, on mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology development and transfer, transparency of action, and support and capacity-building, drawing upon submissions from Parties and relevant technical, social and economic information and expertise;

    6. Further decides that the process shall raise the level of ambition and shall be informed, inter alia, by the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the outcomes of the 2013–2015 review and the work of the subsidiary bodies;

    7. Decides to launch a workplan on enhancing mitigation ambition to identify and to explore options for a range of actions that can close the ambition gap with a view to ensuring the highest possible mitigation efforts by all Parties;

    8. Requests Parties and observer organizations to submit by 28 February 2012 their views on options and ways for further increasing the level of ambition and decides to hold an in-session workshop at the first negotiating session in 2012 to consider options and ways for increasing ambition and possible further actions.

    http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/durban_nov_2011/decisions/application/pdf/cop17_durbanplatform.pdf

    So there’s 2 working groups in the ‘Durban Platform’, the 1st already in existence and the 2nd new (hey! they formed a new committee):-

    1) Existing from #1:-

    Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (WG LTCA)

    Aim: to reach the agreed outcome pursuant to decision 1/CP.13 (Bali Action Plan) through decisions adopted by the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth sessions.

    Terminated December 2012.

    2) New from #2:-

    Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (WG DPEA)

    Aim: a) to develop a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force …. applicable to all Parties.

    Aim: b) work on mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology development and transfer, transparency of action, and support and capacity-building

    Complete a) and b) as early as possible but no later than 2015

    Aim: c) plan its work in the first half of 2012 on (inter alia – among other things, what things?) mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology development and transfer, transparency of action, and support and capacity-building.

    Complete c) end of June 2012.

    Both WGs, LTCA and DPEA, revisit the Cancun Agreements including: Green Climate Fund; Technology Mechanism; Cancun Adaptation Framework; Fast-start finance; and, Forest Management Reference Levels.

    LTCA completes its revisit December 2012.

    DPEA completes its revisit as early as possible but no later than 2015

    Now all they need is money. The substantial commitments so far that I’m aware of are for Fast start – not Green Climate Fund:-

    EU on track with fast start financing to developing countries

    29 November 2011

    The EU is delivering on its fast start finance commitment to support developing countries to strengthen their resilience to climate change and to mitigate their greenhouse gas emissions. The European Commission and the 27 EU Member States today presented their 2011 fast start finance report at the international climate negotiations in Durban.

    This year, the EU mobilised €2.34 billion, despite the difficult economic situation and tight budgetary constraints. Together with the €2.34 billion provided in 2010, this brings the EU fast start contribution to date to €4.68 billion or 65% of the overall pledge for the period 2010-2012.

    Read more:

    * 2011 Fast Start Finance report PDF file [2.79 MB]
    * List of projects supported by EU fast start finance in 2011 XLS file [412 KB]
    * More information on EU fast start finance

    http://ec.europa.eu/clima/news/articles/news_2011112901_en.htm

    And,

    Australia delivers climate finance

    10/12/2010

    Australia has made significant progress since the last meeting of world leaders in Copenhagen on allocating financial assistance to help developing countries tackle climate change—the Copenhagen Accord’s commitment to ‘fast-start’ financing approaching US$30 billion from 2010 to 2012.

    Delivery of fast-start financing is both important to assist countries move to a lower-carbon path, and to increase climate action under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

    To date, Australia has allocated A$473 million of its A$599 million fast-start commitment, including new funding allocations announced in Cancun. These include:

    * A$15 million to the Adaptation Fund
    * A$169 million in additional adaptation allocations under our International Climate Change Adaptation Initiative, with up to A$80 million to the Pacific, up to A$25 million to Africa, up to A$44 million to Southeast Asia, and up to A$20 million to South Asia
    * A$32 million under Australia’s International Forest Carbon Initiative for additional REDD+ activities in Indonesia and globally
    * A$10 million to the Partnership for Market Readiness
    * A$10 million to the Climate Investment Fund’s Program on Scaling-up Renewable Energy in Low Income Countries.

    Information on Australia’s fast-start package is available in the fast-start fact sheet (PDF 1.5 MB).

    http://www.climatechange.gov.au/media/whats-new/australia-delivers-climate-finance.aspx


    Report in the SMH
    : the green climate fund was “an empty shell” after Australia blocked a tax on bunker fuel, the carbon-heavy oil used for aviation and shipping.

    Australia has fast tracked [fast-start] money to help African countries adapt to climate change, $25 million towards helping African nations manage water resources [ditches?], boost food security [fences?] and climate-proof agriculture [greenhouses?] [That's all Africa gets - see allocation above].

    Fast-start is limping along (Cancun – USD 30 billion for the period 2010 – 2012) but the Green Climate Fund (Cancun – goal of mobilizing jointly USD 100 billion per year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries) isn’t.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Grant (NZ)

      the green climate fund was “an empty shell” after Australia blocked a tax on bunker fuel, the carbon-heavy oil used for aviation and shipping.

      Say what? There is no way I am boarding a plane loaded with “bunker fuel”. Bunker fuel is the consistency of a heavy oil. No aircraft is going to go far on that.


      Report this

      00

  • #

    A media release.

    International Climate Science Coalition Rejects Durban Agreement to set New Greenhouse Gas Emission Targets

    I see our Bob Carter has made a cutting contribution.

    ICSC chief science advisor, Professor Bob Carter of James Cook University in Queensland, Australia, and author of the best selling book, “Climate: the Counter Consensus” says, “Science has yet to provide unambiguous evidence that problematic, or even measurable, human-caused global warming is occurring. Consequently, any agreements—Durban, Cancun, Copenhagen or Kyoto—to reduce humanity’s greenhouse gas [GHG] emissions are utterly futile. Governments need to recognize that the really dangerous climate hazards are natural events and change, and to prepare more fully to adapt to them when they occur.”

    As someone who has made his crust partly by horticulture and arboriculture for decades, I would be quite at ease with the CO2 concentration being around 550 ppm.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Excuse Me!
    What The!

    This article puts into perspective the ‘meme’ that ‘Big Oil’ is funding those who oppose Climate Change/Global Warming.

    The U.S. Government has sunk, wait for it, $106 Billion into Climate Research in the 7 years from 2003 to 2010. You work that out.

    That’s an average of $15 Billion a year.

    It’s probably been covered here prior to this, but it’s worth looking at again, even if the article is from August.

    The article details the areas where that money is being directed, but think about this for a minute.

    Ask for a Government Grant to investigate (insert whatever here) and, er, how Climate Change will affect this. (Inserting the words Climate Change virtually assures the Grant will be forthcoming.)

    OK, at the end of the year, you have to release a full report. Knowing that the earlier Grant kept a swathe of people comfortable for a whole year, you tell me what that report is going to say to ensure future grant funding.

    The Alarming Cost Of Climate Change Hysteria. This is from Forbes.

    Joanne gets a mention and a link as well.

    I, er, wonder if ‘Big Oil’ is spending this much.

    Tony.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    I left this comment at Catallaxy

    the agreement or whatever it’s called which was reached at Durban is surprisingly elusive; there’s an awful lot of talk depending on who you are from ‘historic’ – sigh (thanks Greg – does this Govt do anything which is not puffed as ‘historic’) to ‘nothing more than a voluntary deal that’s put off for a decade’ (thanks Kumi) see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/11/kumi-brings-the-good-news/
    But as yet there’s no publication of this elusive whatever it’s called
    So if anyone can find a copy could they put a link (I don’t believe it’s the document attached to the wuwt article although that might be an attachment)

    Richard the document you link to may be the correct document but I don’t know and the document attached on the wuwt post may be the attachment but I don’t want to plough through 56 pages plus 2 and then find out the finalised version is something different

    and an agreement to reach an agreement in the future has so far as I know no contractual obligation

    Sigh ….


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Richard C (NZ)

      Hi Val, here’s the links at the UNFCCC site:

      At this page http://unfccc.int/meetings/durban_nov_2011/meeting/6245/php/view/decisions.php where the previous message was “There are currently no decisions for this meeting, they will be uploaded shortly. In some cases, no decisions are available” there is a new message “The COP 17/CMP 7 decisions can be found on the home page [hotlinked] of the website”. That link leads to this:-

      Decisions adopted by COP 17 and CMP 7

      http://unfccc.int/2860.php

      I think these “decisions” are scurrilous in that I cannot see how they were all agreed on in the process. For example ‘Launching of the Green Climate Fund’ was a decision of Cancun – not Durban.

      Almost-genuine decisions seem to be ‘Establishment of an Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action’ and ‘Dates and venues of future sessions’ but I do not see a decision on the Kyoto Protocol.

      These “decisions” do not tally with the press statements. They just look like what the UNFCCC want the decisions to be – not what the Parties actually decided or agreed to.

      The second “decision” on the list is ‘Establishment of an Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action’ which is only part of what I think is closest to the ‘Durban Platform’ that I posted elsewhere but when you look at the document it reads:-

      Establishment of an Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action

      Proposal by the President
      Draft decision -/CP.17

      That is NOT a decision of the Parties.

      I think the UNFCCC is up to some jiggery-pokery


      Report this

      00

      • #
        val majkus

        thanks Richard – seems there is still work to be done; http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/durban_nov_2011/decisions/application/pdf/cop17_lcaoutcome.pdf
        (page 28)

        Confirms that the first review should start in 2013 and should be concluded by 2015, when the Conference of the Parties shall take appropriate action based on the review;
        159.
        Agrees that Parties will continue working on the scope of the review and considering its further definition, with a view to taking a decision at the Conference of the Parties at its eighteenth session;
        160.
        Also agrees that the review should be guided by the principles of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities and should take into account, inter alia, the following:
        (a)
        The best available scientific knowledge, including the assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change;
        (b)
        Observed impacts of climate change;
        (c)
        An assessment of the overall aggregate effect of the steps taken by Parties in order to achieve the ultimate objective of the Convention;
        (d)
        Consideration of strengthening the long-term global goal, referencing various matters presented by the science, including in relation to temperature rise of 1.5 degrees Celsius;
        161.
        Further agrees that the review should be based on information from various sources, including the following:
        (a)
        The assessment and special reports and technical papers of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change;

        I do suggest we keep an eye on that site to see if those documents change


        Report this

        00

        • #
          val majkus

          and here’s that para from
          http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/durban_nov_2011/decisions/application/pdf/cop17_durbanplatform.pdf
          which in my view carries no contractural obligation on any party:

          Also decides to launch a process to develop a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force under the Convention applicable to all Parties, through a subsidiary body under the Convention hereby established and to be known as the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action;

          I must say they generated a lot of verbiage


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Richard C (NZ)

            Right, this is from the ‘Durban Platform’ and at least it is a decision that tallies with the press reports. It documents 2 actions:-

            #2 1) Launches a process to develop 3 alternatives: a) a Kyoto Protocol successor; b) a legal document that states some contractual relationship; and, c) an agreed outcome with legal force (contractually binding legal document – no different to b).

            #2 2) Establishes WG DPTA to develop alternatives #2 1) a b and c, the process to be completed “as early as possible but no later than 2015″ (#4).

            The Parties are to decide on the final alternative and (possibly) adopt it at COP 21 Dec 2015 (#4) so that the option can be implemented from 2020 (#4).

            I think they have a plan but COP 21 will be interesting.


            Report this

            00

        • #
          Richard C (NZ)

          This document is merely a report (in my view) from this on-going WG (quoting myself):-

          Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (WG LTCA)

          Aim: to reach the agreed outcome pursuant to decision 1/CP.13 (Bali Action Plan) through decisions adopted by the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth sessions.

          This WG will be terminated December 2012

          It’s ventured as a “Draft decision” but note that it is un-numbered as a decision [-/CP.17]

          The ‘Durban Platform’ (also an un-numbered “Draft decision” at least has a specific numbered decision (#1) relating to WG LTCA:-

          1. Decides to extend the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention for one year in order for it to continue its work and reach the agreed outcome pursuant to decision 1/CP.13 (Bali Action Plan) through decisions adopted by the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth sessions of the Conference of the Parties, at which time the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention shall be terminated;

          So apparently, the “agreed outcome” of the ‘Bali Action Plan’ is really what WG LTCA is all about and also what we should be scrutinizing.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Richard C (NZ)

            Here’s the ‘Bali Action Plan’ December 2007 – preamble is not a good start:-

            Reaffirming that economic and social development and poverty eradication are global priorities,

            The guts is #1 a) and b):-

            1. Decides to launch a comprehensive process to enable the full, effective and sustained
            implementation of the Convention through long-term cooperative action, now, up to and beyond 2012, in order to reach an agreed outcome and adopt a decision at its fifteenth session, by addressing, inter alia:

            (a) A shared vision for long-term cooperative action, including a long-term global goal for emission reductions, to achieve the ultimate objective of the Convention, in accordance with the provisions and principles of the Convention, in particular the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, and taking into account social and economic conditions and other relevant factors;

            (b) Enhanced national/international action on mitigation of climate change, including,
            inter alia, consideration of:

            (i) Measurable, reportable and verifiable nationally appropriate mitigation commitments or actions, including quantified emission limitation and reduction objectives, by all developed country Parties, while ensuring the comparability of efforts among them, taking into account differences in their national circumstances;

            (ii) Nationally appropriate mitigation actions by developing country Parties in the context of sustainable development, supported and enabled by technology, financing and capacity-building, in a measurable, reportable and verifiable manner;

            (iii) Policy approaches and positive incentives on issues relating to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries; and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries;

            And #2,

            2. Decides that the process shall be conducted under a subsidiary body under the Convention, hereby established and known as the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention, that shall complete its work in 2009 and present the outcome of its work to the Conference of the Parties for adoption at its fifteenth session;

            WG LTCA’s “work” keeps getting extended on the never-never apparently, it was supposed to terminate in 2009 but now it could still be around to at least 2015.

            #1(b)(ii) “financing” was fleshed out a little more at Cancun.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Richard C (NZ)

            WG LTCA’s “work” keeps getting extended on the never-never apparently, it was supposed to terminate in 2009 but now it could still be around to at least 2015.

            I’ve got this wrong, WG LTCA is extended to the end of 2012 (but I’m sure it’ll be around longer0. It is WG DPEA that is supposed to finish it’s “work” no later than 2015.


            Report this

            00

    • #
      Richard C (NZ)

      Remember val that we had the same situation last year with Cancun. We had the decision to establish the Green Climate Fund (paragraph 102):-

      Decides to establish a Green Climate Fund, to be designated as an operating entity of the financial mechanism of the Convention under Article 11, with arrangements to be
      concluded between the Conference of the Parties and the Green Climate Fund to ensure that it is accountable to and functions under the guidance of the Conference of the Parties, to support projects, programmes, policies and other activities in developing country Parties using thematic funding windows;

      http://unfccc.int/files/na/application/pdf/07a01-1.pdf

      But when I asked our NZ govt officials for a list of signatories of Parties attached to that document (or other) that states that the signatory Parties actually formally agreed to the decision I was given a monumental fob-off – something about that not being the way it was done. I’ve got the response in my emails that I can dredge up if necessary (and it is recorded at CCG) but point being that this year is a repetition.

      I cannot see how the Cancun decisions can be contractually binding on any govt legally or that the entities created have any legal basis without such a document that can be presented in a court of law.

      There are 8 decisions in the ‘Durban Platform’ but again, who were the signatories (proof of agreement) and why is the document not available as a formal record of what was agreed to AND by whom? I.e. where is legal proof of agreement?

      Some commenters are curious about where the non-extension to the first Kyoto Protocol period is documented (or something like that) but the way I see it is that the KP-1 will elapse because there was no formal extension (no KP-1 decision in the ‘Durban Platform’) therefore, by default there will no longer be any obligation for signatories(?) to KP-1.

      Needless to say, Japan, Russia, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada have availed themselves of the opportunity to scarper leaving only the 27-nation European Union, Norway and Switzerland to make voluntary commitments under a pseudo-second period of the now non-protocol starting in 2013. The US was never silly enough to opt in in the first place.

      And as of now, there is no KP-2 just talk of it, the term of KP-1 is at an end, so where does that leave all the KP-1 projects and credits? Locked-in on an island of time, and no new projects can be initiated until 2015-2020 or thereabouts.

      The planet is in serious trouble in my view.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        val majkus

        thanks Richard; I also wrote to Combet about Cancun but no reply

        I personally would like to see Australia withdraw from the UN and pay some attention to its citizens rather than acting to their detriment on the world stage

        the good news story of the day is Canada withdrawing from the Kyoto protocol http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/12/kyoto-in-the-past-for-canada/#more-52927
        which can still be done legally

        and if we Aussies get a conservative Govt before 2015 maybe we can do the same


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Richard C (NZ)

          This is interesting because it is a more radical approach than simply discontinuing any further KP-1 activity.

          Formal withdrawal indicates to me that it nullifies all that country’s obligations, credits, transactions etc accrued under KP-1 from 1997 – 2012 i.e they are unwinding everything. That would be extremely difficult for NZ and it’s ETS at this stage so I don’t see that happening here unfortunately (Oh Canada – onyer).

          I don’t know if OZs carbon tax is linked to KP-1 at all but I was of the understanding that it was an an interim arrangement until OZ set up an ETS. That plan has hit a snag and it looks like OZ will be saddled with the tax for some time to come or unless a new gov curtails it.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          val majkus

          and Richard you’re right; putting up draft (so named) documents without signatures is open to abuse (in my view)
          a very messy procedure
          so we should keep an eye on those documents


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Robert

          The suspicion among some of us is that your Julia is going to send as much of your money to the U.N. as she can, while she can so she has a nice cushy place to hide once you out her.

          Since the U.N.’s only real purpose appears to be that of taking others money to enrich themselves that is probably a fairly safe bet as to her plans/motivations.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Richard C (NZ)

          Where she will join NZs ex left-leaning PM Helen Clark – now head of UNDP. It’s where leftists go.

          Hence the description of the UN’s Durban proposal as “One long Marxist rant”.


          Report this

          00

  • #
    JPeden

    Great comments, thanks! Nice to see good old John “Emeritus” Brookes in attendance….


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sean McHugh

    I read online an article about the Durban conference in this morning’s Australian:

    A notable achievement but the real work starts now

    It heaped praise on the huge outcome. As I began reading my eyes darted to the top and bottom looking for the signature of ‘Greg Combet’, ‘Tim Flannery’ or mindset equivalent. No author’s name was there. I started to wonder if this could be an edito. . . . . nah, no way!

    But yes, it was an editorial – an editorial that sells, as glorious, an unbinding agreement to agree later if an agreement can be found. And this might be implemented in about a decade. The mind boggles. What is depressing, is that this naive editorial enthusiasm comes at a time when most of the world is waking up to a struggling scam that essentially transfers money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries.

    So is the Australian kowtowing to the government to soften their witch hunt and threats of totalitarian media censorship, or have the editors of the Australian always been taking stupid pills, just not enough of them to please the Labor-Greens?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Peter Lang

    PEOPLE PREFER WARMER TO COLDER

    I’ve prepared a simple plot of population density versus average surface temperature at sea level. The chart shows people prefer warmer to colder:
    y = 40.548e^0.0302x
    R2 = 0.0148

    So, what is so bad about a little warming?

    Data sources used:

    Average surface temperature versus Latitude
    http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/c/cb/Temperature_versus_Latitude.png
    Latitude versus population density (of nations)
    http://www.bit.ly/uSG0oo


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Grant (NZ)

      PEOPLE PREFER WARMER TO COLDER

      You have to be joking! Look at the massive spending of people on holidays in the Arctic and Siberia. No one goes to the South Pacific or Carribean for holidays. /sarc


      Report this

      00

    • #

      Well done Peter.

      We all know of course how the Warmistas chant “we’ve known since Arrhenius that CO2 is a GHG and it warms.”

      Well I’ve got a “We’ve Known Since Arhenius” of my own I’d like to share.

      “We’ve know since the era of Arhenius that warmer is ALWAYS BETTER than cooler.”

      And here is the proof that we have known this since at least the era of ARRRRRRRRHHHENNNNIUSSSSSSS.

      Popular Science Monthly/Volume 5/July 1874/Climate and Social Development

      CLIMATE AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT.[1]

      By HERBERT SPENCER.

      LIFE in general is possible only between certain limits of temperature; and life of the higher kinds is possible only within a comparatively narrow range of temperature, maintained artificially if not naturally. Hence it results that social life, presupposing as it does not only human life, but that life vegetal and animal on which human life depends, is restricted by certain extremes of cold and heat.

      Here the fact we have to note is that, where the temperature which man’s vital functions require can be maintained with difficulty, social evolution is not possible. There can be neither a sufficient surplus power in each individual nor a sufficient number of individuals. Not only are the energies of the Esquimaux expended mainly in defending himself against loss of heat, and in laying up stores by which he may continue to do this during the arctic night, but his physiological processes are greatly modified to the same end. Without fuel, and, indeed, unable to burn within his snow-hut any thing more than an oil-lamp, lest the walls should melt, he has to keep up that bodily warmth which even his thick fur dress fails to retain, by devouring vast titles of blubber and oil ; and Bs digestive system, heavily taxed In providing the wherewith to meet excessive loss by radiation, supplies less material for other vital purposes. This great physiological cost of individual life, indirectly checking the multiplication of individuals, arrests social evolution.

      Though, in some tropical regions, an opposite extreme of tempera- ture so far impedes the vital actions as to impede social development, yet hindrance from this cause seems exceptional and relatively unim- portant. Life in general, and mammalian life along with it, is great in quantity as well as individually high, in localities that are among the hottest. The inertness and silence during the noontide glare in such localities do, indeed, furnish evidence of enervation ; but in cooler parts of the twenty-four hours there is a compensating energy. And if it is true that varieties of the human race, adapted to these localities, show us, in comparison with ourselves, some indolence, this does not seem greater than, or even equal to, the indolence of the primitive man in temperate climates.

      Contemplated in the mass, the facts do not countenance the cur- rent idea that great heat hinders progress. Many societies have arisen in hot climates, and in hot climates have reached large and complex growths. All our earliest recorded civilizations belonged to regions which, if not tropical, almost equal the tropics in height of tempera- ture. India and Southern China, as still existing, show us great social evolutions within the tropics. And, beyond this, the elaborate archi- tectural remains of Java and of Cambodia yield proofs of other tropi- cal civilizations in the East ; while the extinct societies of Central America, Mexico, and Peru, need but be named to make it manifest that in the New World, also, there were in past times great advances in hot regions.

      Taking the most general view of the facts, we must therefore say that, solar radiation being the source of those forces by which life, vegetal and animal, is carried on, and being, by implication, the source of the forces displayed in human life, and consequently, in social life, it results that there can be no considerable social evolution on tracts of the earth’s surface where solar radiation is very feeble. We see that, though, contrariwise, there is on some tracts a solar radiation in excess of the degree most favorable to vital actions, yet the con- sequent hindrance to social evolution is relatively small. Further, we conclude that an abundant supply of light and heat is requisite during those first stages of progress in which social vitality is small.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    Here’s a fairly predictable commentary from the NYT on Durban. The last few paragraphs mention bottom up activism. A bit like the attempts of our meddling local councils and states:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/11/science/earth/climate-change-expands-far-beyond-an-environmental-issue.html?_r=1&src=rechp


    Report this

    00

  • #
    KeithH

    Jake @ 16 mentions the Netherlands. For anyone not familiar with what the Dutch have done in flood protection and where and how they have spent 2.5 trillion dollars over the last 50 years with a further 25 billion earmarked for the next 100 years, Google ‘North Sea Wall’ and take your pick of the many articles.

    For me, my visit there many years ago was a breathtaking highlight seeing the vast engineering works involved in their retractable storm surge barrier which enables 16,000 ton steel gates almost the size of the Eiffel Tower to swing shut on the largest ball joints ever made when a computer senses danger.

    Seeing what Man is capable of doing to address real current problems instead of wasting billions of dollars chasing implausible solutions to unlikely future problems raised by unvalidated unfalsifiable computer modelled projections, it is no wonder we feel such anger and frustration!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe's World

    Jo,

    When the planet does cool, do you not think that the UNFCCC will be pushing that their organization were the ones to cool the planet by their emissions strategy?
    In doing so, they can push for more funding as they are the only organization that can control this planets climate.

    Help…the looney’s are loose…and in control.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Grant (NZ)

      Whether there is global cooling or not these monkeys are going to claim the result. Why? Because they are in control of the temperature/climate measurements.


      Report this

      00

  • #
  • #
    Juliar

    Jo, you may want to take a look at this story.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-12-13/howard-lends-support-to-anti-climate-change-book/3727650

    The title of the story just shows how fricken stupid the ABC are. “Anti climate change book”…FFS, how stupid are the ABC?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Fred Allen

    Supposedly, Juliua Gillard and Australia was “leading the world” on climate change. Good to see Canada is following. It just pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol. Let’s see which countries follow Canada and which follow Australia.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Crakar24

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/12/kyoto-in-the-past-for-canada/

      The answer to your question is a no brainer Fred…………..but you already knew that didnt you.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Louis Hissink

      Pulling out of Kyoto is irrelevant – when the US congress refused to support their signing, Clinton sidestepped the issue and instead made an executive order to adopt Agenda 21 and achieve the Kyoto goal by other means.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      A fair bit of discussion on Reddit about the reuters article on this.
      Because it was submitted to the /worldnews queue and not the /environment queue there is a significant amount of relatively sober non-drooling explanation of why the Kyoto Protocol didn’t make sense for Canada, or for anyone else. Basically, Canada has huge carbon sinks anyway, and it was all economic pain for the provincially-regulated oil sector for no national environmental gain.
      Sounds familiar, eh?

      K-Rudd ratified Kyoto, then got ankletapped for slipping behind schedule.
      Juliar steps in and right on cue imposes what K-Rudd had basically signed us up for (regardless of election outcome).
      Behind the puppets the eco-fascist bankster tag-team rolls on.

      I’m having fond memories of when we had the Democrats in the Senate.
      Maybe we can get Jo to run for government? A New Start With Nova. It sells itself.


      Report this

      00

  • #
  • #
    theRealUniverse

    Its not about whether there any so called AGW at Durban its all about total global eco fascist dominance! They have stated that its about TOTAL eco control over all our lives to put the whole place back to the stone age! READ the docs that have been cited by Monckton and others


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    ABC manages to include the polar bear in its report…

    13 Dec: ABC: Reuters: Canada to pull out of Kyoto protocol
    Polar Bear Photo Caption: Critics have accused Canada of being an international renegade on climate change
    (excerpts) The right-of-centre Conservative government of prime minister Stephen Harper, which has close ties to the energy sector…
    Environmentalists quickly hit out against the move.
    “It’s a national disgrace. Prime Minister Harper just spat in the faces of people around the world for whom climate change is increasingly a life-and-death issue,” said Graham Saul of Climate Action Network Canada…
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-12-13/canada-to-pull-out-of-kyoto-protocol/3728268/?site=sydney


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Robert

      Could Graham Saul of Climate Action Network Canada please list the people for whom climate change is a “life and death issue?”

      If circumstances are indeed so dire surely he must have a list of all who have died thus far.

      I am really friggin’ sick of the theatrics from these nitwit environmentalist groups. Be nice if they would close their yap and start practicing what they preach. Instead they have no problem using the very technology they claim is the problem (and which they would like to deny all of us) to spread their version of how things are and how they want them to be.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Another Ian

    Well, Canada has an done an agreement with a difference!

    “Kyoto – in the past for Canada”

    More at

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/12/kyoto-in-the-past-for-canada/#more-52927


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Another absokutely brainless piece of alarmist garbage at the ABC spouting “denier” left and right:
    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3729068.html

    Geoff Davies, a retired geophysicist, completely embarrasses himself in a mindless alarmist rant about stopping GHGs before we all die… I really would expect better from someone who studied earth science, albeit a long time ago. I couldn’t force myself to read more than a few paragraphs of the tripe, but perhaps some of you can manage more.

    I wrote:

    I find the ABC’s tolerance of the term “denier” apalling. It is against the terms and guidelines for posting here and yet the ABC continues to condone this pointless abuse (it achieves nothing in furthering the debate) because it refers to people refusing to kowtow brainlessly to the unelected and unscientific kommissars of the IPCC.

    I see so many completely baseless accusations in this post that it is clear the author is an advocate with little or no knowledge of reality surrounding the debate.

    1) Seeing as I am presumably a “denier” explain to me what I am denying.
    2) Show me evidence of these web sites funded by “Big Oil.” I can cite you many, many academics funded by “Big Government.”
    3) The author seems to confuse relatively well understood science and the alarmist predictions from climate models known to be highly inaccurate, which can’t even effectively backcast the past.

    Alarmism at it’s absolute worst. I expect this kind of nonsense from Al Gore, not from a retired geophysicist.

    Copied eslsewhere because I know the ABC mods and their previous “moderations.”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    Plastic bags are made from carbon containing natural gas and end up as landfill.

    Should we stop the drilling for natural gas or make more plastic bags?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw

    George Carlin – Saving the Planet


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    Home – Temple of Gaia Incorporated

    http://www.templeofgaiainc.org/

    Our Temple is a 501(c)3 Non-Profit Religious Organization. We perform handfatings, pagan funerals, wiccanings, rights of passage, house blessings and …


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    The print media reporting (and opinion) of the Durban result is premature rubbish.

    Adam Morton in an SMH op thinks:-

    “the Kyoto Protocol was extended for a second period”

    It wasn’t, only the Europeans are adhering voluntarily to the defunct KP past 2012 but even that’s conjecture and the new ‘Durban Platform’ road-map is a whole new ballgame.

    Ben Cubby also in the SMH says:-

    “The Kyoto Protocol, which was to end next year, will be extended to bridge the gap until a new agreement comes into force”

    It wont be as above.

    First prize for journalistic rubbish must go to the AP (a warmist enclave) for their article printed in the NZ Herald:-

    “Nkoana-Mashabane said the package of four documents, which were being printed as she spoke, were an imperfect compromise, but they reflected years of negotiations on issues that had plagued UN climate efforts.

    The 100-plus pages would give new life to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, whose carbon emissions targets expire next year and apply only to industrial countries.”

    Nope, superseded. The ‘Durban Platform’ is one document, less than two pages and no “new life” to the KP – just hope for a new “something-arother” post 2020.

    And,

    “A separate document obliges major developing nations like China and India, excluded under Kyoto, to accept legally binding emissions targets in the future, by 2020 at the latest”

    Nope, superseded. That all has to be agreed to at COP 21 2015 under the ‘Durban Platform’ (and the chances of that are…….) and further down, four documents plus a separate document adds to “two documents” apparently.

    These guys have gone off half cocked and/or just want readers to think what they want them to.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wes george

    This has probably been cited and I just missed it. A must read!

    The journalist Donna Laframboise got volunteers all over the world to help her count the times the IPCC used non-peer reviewed literature. Her conclusion is that: ‘Of the 18,531 references in the 2007 Climate Bible we found 5,587 – a full 30% – to be non peer-reviewed.’
    Yet even to say things like this is to commit heresy. To stand up and say, within a university or within the BBC, that you do not think global warming is dangerous gets you the sort of reaction that standing up in the Vatican and saying you don’t think God is good would get. Believe me, I have tried it.
    Does it matter? Suppose I am right that much of what passes for mainstream climate science is now infested with pseudoscience, buttressed by a bad case of confirmation bias, reliant on wishful thinking, given a free pass by biased reporting and dogmatically intolerant of dissent. So what?
    After all there’s pseudoscience and confirmation bias among the climate heretics too.
    Well here’s why it matters. The alarmists have been handed power over our lives; the heretics have not. Remember Britain’s unilateral Climate Change Act is officially expected to cost the hard-pressed UK economy £18.3 billion a year for the next 39 years and achieve an unmeasurably small change in carbon dioxide levels.
    At least sceptics do not cover the hills of Scotland with useless, expensive, duke-subsidising wind turbines whose manufacture causes pollution in Inner Mongolia and which kill rare raptors such as this griffon vulture.
    At least crop circle believers cannot almost double your electricity bills and increase fuel poverty while driving jobs to Asia, to support their fetish.
    At least creationists have not persuaded the BBC that balanced reporting is no longer necessary.
    At least homoeopaths have not made expensive condensing boilers, which shut down in cold weather, compulsory, as John Prescott did in 2005.
    At least astrologers have not driven millions of people into real hunger, perhaps killing 192,000 last year according to one conservative estimate, by diverting 5% of the world’s grain crop into motor fuel.
    That’s why it matters. We’ve been asked to take some very painful cures.
    So we need to be sure the patient has a brain tumour rather than a nosebleed. Handing the reins of power to pseudoscience has an unhappy history. Remember eugenics. Around 1910 the vast majority of scientists and other intellectuals agreed that nationalizing reproductive decisions so as to stop poor, disabled and stupid people from having babies was not just a practical but a moral imperative of great urgency.
    ‘There is now no reasonable excuse for refusing to face the fact’, said George
    9
    Bernard Shaw, ‘that nothing but a eugenics religion can save our civilization from the fate that has overtaken all previous civilizations.’ By the skin of its teeth, mainly because of a brave Liberal MP called Josiah Wedgwood, Britain never handed legal power to the eugenics movement. Germany did.
    Or remember Trofim Lysenko, a pseudoscientific crank with a strange idea that crops could be trained to do what you wanted and that Mendelian genetics was bunk. His ideas became the official scientific religion of the Soviet Union and killed millions; his critics, such as the geneticist Nikolai Vavilov, ended up dead in prison.
    Am I going too far in making these comparisons? I don’t think so. James Hansen of NASA says oil firm executives should be tried for crimes against humanity. (Remember this is the man who is in charge of one of the supposedly impartial data sets about global temperatures.) John Beddington, Britain’s chief scientific adviser, said this year that just as we are ‘grossly intolerant of racism’, so we should also be ‘grossly intolerant of pseudoscience’, in which he included all forms of climate-change scepticism.
    The irony of course is that much of the green movement began as heretical dissent. Greenpeace went from demanding that the orthodox view of genetically modified crops be challenged, and that the Royal Society was not to be trusted, to demanding that heresy on climate change be ignored and the Royal Society could not be wrong.
    Talking of Greenpeace, did you know that the collective annual budget of Greenpeace, WWF and Friends of the Earth was more than a billion dollars globally last year? People sometimes ask me what’s the incentive for scientists to exaggerate climate change. But look at the sums of money available to those who do so, from the pressure groups, from governments and from big companies. It was not the sceptics who hired an ex News of the World deputy editor as a spin doctor after Climategate, it was the University of East Anglia.
    By contrast scientists and most mainstream journalists risk their careers if they take a skeptical line, so dogmatic is the consensus view. It is left to the blogosphere to keep the flame of heresy alive and do the investigative reporting the media has forgotten how to do. In America, Anthony Watts who crowd- sourced the errors in the siting of thermometers and runs wattsupwiththat. com; in Canada, Steve McIntyre, the mathematician who bit by bit exposed the shocking story of the hockey stick and runs climateaudit.org; here in Britain, Andrew Montford, who dissected the shenanigans behind the Climategate whitewash enquiries and runs bishop-hill.net; In Australia, Joanne Nova, the former television science presenter who has pieced together the enormous sums of money that go to support vested interests in alarm, and runs joannenova. com.au.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      memoryvault

      You are right, Wes, it is a “great read”.

      It would be similarly “great” to have some idea of where it came from.

      A link, perhaps?
      Or failing that, at least a name?


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Wes, at the risk of abusing the religion metaphor, you’re preaching to the converted here.
      You’re quoting Matt Ridley’s speech for the 2011 Angus Millar lecture, which was covered extensively here on JN over a month ago.
      The full text is on Bishop Hill’s blog and I think on Matt Ridley’s blog for the Rational Optimist.
      The formidable audio of the speech has also become available from The RSA site.

      It would certainly be in my list of top 5 expert speeches and evidence that I think more people ought to hear as a realist’s antidote to CAGW scaremongering.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    crosspatch

    Wes, it’s even worse than that. Some of the peer reviewed literature they cite has been completely discredited since. It is a racket, a scam, theft, the greatest robbery of the people of this world ever perpetrated.

    But the good thing is we have until 2020. If my hunch is correct, by 2020 we will be a second decade into this century with no warming. The third world nations are beside themselves because they realize they have missed the gravy train.

    What will happen in about 5 years time with the media on this issue is silence. They won’t say it was a scam, they will simply go silent. You just won’t hear about it. They’ll never bring the subject up. Jones, and Mann, and Briffa, and Hulme will simply quietly fade into oblivion, no consequence at all to be had for wasting billions of the people’s money.

    Stuff will slowly be fed to the memory hole, and that will be the end of it. But if you stand outside on a cold clear night when the wind is very calm and listen really hard, you might hear a very faint “oops” and that’s about it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    crosspatch

    Memoryvault, I believe it comes from this and it is a VERY good read.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/01/thank-you-matt-ridley/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    Thank you to everyone who posted a link.

    I read most of the stuff on WUWT but obviously missed that article.

    Thanks again.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    “The sound of the ABC apologizing for a decade of misinformation, propaganda, outright lies, hateful attacks and cover-ups about climate-change…”

    Its honestly true. The media I always thought I could trust is turning out to be the ones with the most corruption. It sickens me people can knowingly lie through their teeth!!


    Report this

    00