JoNova

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


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

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



Archives

An emergency meeting for 40 world leaders to do climate deals? The real “Paris” negotiation?

Give us our junkets, and forgive us our flights. We’re here to save the world.

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon just announced plans to invite 40 world leaders to a “closed shop” climate meeting in just four weeks time. How often does that happen?

UN summons leaders to closed-door climate change meeting

Frustrated by slow progress in global climate talks, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon plans to invite around 40 world leaders including President Barack Obama and German Chancellor Angela Merkel to a closed- door meeting next month.

The meeting will take place in New York on September 27, a day ahead of the UN general assembly, said three people with knowledge of the matter. Ban also plans to invite French President Francois Hollande, India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, as well as Chinese leaders, according to the people, who asked not to be identified because they’re not authorised to speak to the media.

The bonanza of money and power on offer in Paris is so large that nothing will be left to chance. The industry is worth $1.5 trillion a year already. Laws about energy use cut across every part of the free economy. It’s a bureaucrat’s wet-dream — allowing them to feed dependent corporate friends and sympathetic NGOs at the same time as handing out free passes to pollute to supporters and waving the same passes as leverage over enemies.

The UNFCCC in Copenhagen in 2009,was a debacle, and they are not going to make that mistake twice. The fact that countries have already publicly locked in emissions cuts is part of the massive preparation for Paris. This new “closed door” meeting is presumably to strengthen the networks of those who are on the climate-gravy-train, and to tighten the thumbscrews on those who are not. The last minute meeting may be a sign things are not going well for Big-Bureaucracy, but then again, perhaps this meeting was on their agenda all along. Who knows? Is there anyone that could be FOI’d in the UN? No, just send in your money, no accountability required, no public witnesses wanted, no transparency on offer. Does the UN have a well-deserved reputation for corruption? Give us our junkets, and forgive us our flights. We’re here to save the world.

India is not going to cut back on coal:

Power Minister Piyush Goyal on Friday said coal-based thermal power will remain the staple power source for India and denounced Western concerns over climate and environmental hazards.

Nor is China, which will not do any serious reductions until 2030 when its rapidly growing population stabilizes. Five of the G7 nations have increased their coal use.

Skeptics must work together

If independent, free states were even remotely organized they would be holding their own networking sessions right now. There is no sign they are. Make sure your ministers and representatives know what’s coming. Big carrots and sticks will be offered to cajole nations to join in the parasitic, pointless money grab. If there is an international “targeted” punishment system in place (as Warwick University researchers recommended),  I doubt it will be announced publicly but done with plausible deniability behind “closed doors”. The only defense is preparation. Skeptical free nations must stand together. Divided they will fall one by one to the self-feeding system of collectivist big-government pressure.

More than 190 nations are working to reach an agreement in Paris this December to limit greenhouse-gas emissions and avert the worst effects of global warming. While Obama, Modi and other world leaders have declared support for the goal, negotiations are moving slowly and Ban has complained repeatedly about the slow pace of the talks. Deep divides remain about the legal structure of the agreement, how to provide financial help to poorer countries and other issues.

Meanwhile up to 4 million die from indoor air pollution annually. There are no emergency meetings to stop this carnage. This is not the kind of pollution that generates money and power for the activists who want to clean it up.
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.5/10 (123 votes cast)
An emergency meeting for 40 world leaders to do climate deals? The real "Paris" negotiation?, 9.5 out of 10 based on 123 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/pl4kj5j

241 comments to An emergency meeting for 40 world leaders to do climate deals? The real “Paris” negotiation?

  • #
    Peter C

    Give us our junkets, and forgive us our flights. We’re here to save the world.

    For those who might have not had a Christian religious upbringing; the reference is the Lord’s prayer:
    “Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who have trespassed against us…..”

    465

    • #
      Gee Aye

      Thanks for that. As an atheist I had no idea.

      1610

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        I thought you would do better given your education: “anaesthetist” not anatheist.

        KK

        40

        • #

          It was a joke KK… I was expressing astonishment that someone needed to point this out

          54

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            And now here I am expressing astonishment that you would feel you have to point that out.

            I was bored at the time .. forgive us our trespasses as we sometimes …..

            KK :)

            70

          • #
            GI

            Whoa on there leaf,

            You need to think carefully about this.

            A whole new name, new avatar, new the lot.

            I’ll have to conceptualise a whole persona – again.

            Where does that leave me (No pun intended)?

            I like this hard bitten military leaf.

            I’ve become emotionally attached…

            Goddammit!

            40

            • #
              GI

              SRGit huh, maybe I could work with that.

              30

            • #
              KinkyKeith

              Don’t get too self righteous on us will you.

              KK

              10

              • #

                yes or self righteous

                10

              • #
                GI

                But just to clarify – we’re not changing the leaf, right?

                10

              • #

                I don’t need to change anything. Everyone knows that SRGit is behind the leaf. I’d hate you to have to return to your drawing software and create another gravatar.

                And just think how confusing it would be for the poor historians in a hundred years trying to describe our soon to be famous exchanges?

                20

              • #
                GI

                Unfortunately the current software will be outdated and all knowledge of life, the universe and corn pone recipes will be lost to a distorted, dystopian, politically correct, socialist future, where holding weekly government elections becomes mandatory so the few remaining UN officials can reap the benfits of generous pensions, travel entitlements and state funerals while munching on stale soylent green wafers.

                10

              • #
                GI

                I hate dystopia.

                10

              • #
                KinkyKeith

                Dystopia?

                Surely you mean dyspepsia after eating that?

                “forgive us our trespasses as we sometimes” …..occasionally forgive those who trespass against us.

                Some might say this exchange has been stupid ; and I might be forced to agree, but I have been introduced to a new and interesting point of view put by Thomas Paine ; extraordinary clarity from a couple of hundred years in the past ; possibly just before the Thames froze over!!!!!!!!

                KK

                ps When will the management shut down this silly exchange?

                10

              • #
                James Bradley

                Kinky Keith,

                Do you think that you are absolved of responsibility when it was your posts that encouraged most of these responses and replies?

                10

              • #
                KinkyKeith

                James

                Guilty

                The section you refer to has indeed been a bit kinky

                10

      • #
        AndyG55

        As a human.. you have no idea. !! :-)

        62

  • #
    el gordo

    ‘Skeptical free nations must stand together.’

    So that leaves Australia doing the heavy lifting, the Americans aren’t ready.

    ‘Most of the 17 Republicans running for president are skeptical about climate change caused by humans, a stance that appears to line up with conservative voters who hold sway in the GOP primary contest.’

    Boston Globe

    162

    • #

      au contraire… It was the US which didn’t ratify Kyoto. The US which didn’t bring in a carbon tax. The US is where at least the states have some real power to try to get around Obama’s side-door rulings that avoid congress. And if the Republicans are mostly skeptical they are far far ahead of our conservative major party which has a multi-billion dollar “Direct Action” plan to reduce carbon and which promised to cut our emissions by a monster 26% by 2030.

      Our two major parties argue over who is best at pandering to the climate monster.

      The US is years ahead. In Australia we could only dream of having skeptics competing for Tony Abbotts job. Stick Malcolm Turnbull into the Republican presidential line up and see how well he “fits in”. Not! The landscape is very different here.

      753

      • #

        You forget that the US is swinging on the socialist end of its spectrum, but the Australian pendulum is swinging at it’s “conservative” end, which is not very conservative.

        WA even has a conservative premier who believes the climate religion and has squandered our boom time income with big spending. The alternative here is big government or bigger…

        683

        • #
          el gordo

          Yeah but we have the most sceptics.

          http://www.alternet.org/environment/which-advanced-country-has-most-climate-skeptics-hint-its-not-united-states

          Dennis Jensen is urgently required on the front bench.

          273

          • #
            Bill

            Interesting how that “study” completely ignored Canada, which has the greatest percentage of skeptics in the population despite the whining and bleating of the greens, suzuki etc. (Must have something to do with having one of the most variable climates on earth.)

            180

            • #
              gai

              I would think it has to do with sitting in the refrigerator and being a bit worried about ending up in the Ice Box. Especially if Global Warming is just a con and diversion to distract the Sheeple from a major cooling of the climate.

              IF another ice age was in the cards (little or big) wouldn’t you want to move the wealth and infrastructure towards the equator and leave the sheeple to starve and fight? Wouldn’t you tell them the opposite of the actual truth?

              All this CAGW nonsense started in 1972 or a little before. This is the 1974 CIA Report

              “A Study of Climatological Research as it Pertains to Intelligence Problems”

              “… Since 1972 the grain crisis has intensified…. Since 1969 the storage of grain has decreased from 600 million metric tons to less than 100 million metric tons – a 30 day supply… many governments have gone to great lengths to hide their agricultural predicaments from other countries as well as from their own people…

              pg 9
              The archaeologists and climatotologists document a rather grim history… There is considerable evidence that these empires may not have been undone by barbarian invaders but by climatic change…. has tied several of these declines to specific global cool periods, major and minor, that affected global atmospheric circulation and brought wave upon wave of drought to formerly rich agricultural lands.

              Refugees from these collapsing civilizations were often able to migrate to better lands… This would be of little comfort however,… The world is too densely populated and politically divided to accommodate mass migration.

              Are we headed towards cooling? Probably and soon. Will it be the Big Drop? I doubt if anyone could tell you but a return to the 1960s would be bad enough food production wise and the climate can easily change within a decade.

              Time for Dr Evan’s UPDATE PLEASE!!!


              REPLY Yes Gai, he is converting he research into a series of 20 posts (or more) as we speak. — Jo

              230

        • #
          Manfred

          You forget that the US is swinging on the socialist end of its spectrum…

          Perhaps, though an anachronistic political label seems irrelevant when one considers the truly incarcerating totalitarianism so clearly advertised by the Green Agenda?

          The UN has made it more than plain what an undemocratic World Government could look like — from IPCC collectivist ‘science’ to the dispensation of morality allocating guilt and shame, from the UNFCCC ‘new economic world order’ to the UNEP divestment strategy. And in the political background, trying his hardest to look as though he’s in the foreground, a powerless lame duck POTUS desperate to be seen as the architect of Green change and supporter of World Governance, literally parrots a stream of vacuous nonsense, that should in theory have him removed from office on the grounds of insanity.

          All pretense of rationality is now set aside,

          “Submerged countries. Abandoned cities. Fields no longer growing. Indigenous peoples who can’t carry out traditions that stretch back millennia,” he said. “Entire industries of people who can’t practice their livelihoods. Desperate refugees seeking the sanctuary of nations not their own. Political disruptions that could trigger multiple conflicts around the globe.”

          There’s a developing urgency about this now that few seem to realise, most seem to ignore. It’ll be supremely interesting to watch the fourth estate wake-up out of their coma. They’ll be the first to be thoroughly shackled.

          No, we recognise that this goes far beyond the tedious routine of noisy socialists or conservatives swinging on their cyclical political trapeze.

          150

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            … an anachronistic political label seems irrelevant when one considers the truly incarcerating totalitarianism so clearly advertised by the Green Agenda?

            If you go far enough to the left, you become indistinguishable from those who went just as far. to the right.

            My father’s war was fighting facsism. My war was fighting communism.

            When we compared notes, we discovered we were both actually fighting totalitarianism, however is was dressed. A small group of people with all of the power, and most of the wealth, and a life-style to suit, supported by a large base of people who work all their lives, just to survive and support their family plus, of course, the small group at the top, will all of the power, most of the wealth, and a life style to suit.

            The more things change, the more they stay the same

            160

            • #
              Manfred

              RW, one could cautiously argue that one was ‘blessed’ to have an identifiable enemy, with a fair degree of bolster from the fourth estate and the required clutch of politicians.

              Green totalitarianism is still equated to, and sold as, phosphate free washing powder, polar bears and saving the rain forest, a stunningly successful misdirection.

              When reality eventually chime in, things could get ‘exciting’.

              120

            • #
              Peter C

              My father’s war was fighting facsism. My war was fighting communism.

              When we compared notes, we discovered we were both actually fighting totalitarianism

              Thanks RW.

              Was fascism far right! It is described as that these days, but from a liberal point of view it seems to be central control of society, which means socialism.
              Socialism is deemed to be left.

              So I am very confused!

              100

              • #
                Dave in the states

                The Nazi party was officially the National Socialist German Workers Party. The Main difference from left wing socialism compared to right wing National Socialism was the racial component. There were certain winners and losers under the central control system based on race. They were bitter enemies of Soviet Communism, but that was based more on who will be in charge and be the elites, rather than the day to day workings of the centralized system for controlling the masses. It was still totalitarianism.

                Mussolini was a radical left wing socialist in Italy before he gained power, then he consolidated all power in himself. Italian Fascism is noted that it combined certain elements of capitalism and industry with strong central government control. I see some strong parallels between Mussolini and Obama.

                What starts out as benign regulations and rules never stays that way, because there are always somebody that won’t play ball. Tougher and tougher enforcement policies follow.

                60

          • #
            OriginalSteve

            I’m a rubbish speller…what you is what you get….

            20

            • #
              OriginalSteve

              ….see….

              20

              • #
                gai

                Don’t you love the Progressive Schooling thanks to John Dewey, that crippled so many for life? Destroying the ability to read (and thus spell) is integral in forming good little socialists instead of independent thinking individualists.

                Dewey (Founding member of the American Fabian Society) identified reading ability as the key to independent thinking. He then used the newly formed University of Chicago experimental Laboratory School to test methods that kill the ability to read on young school children. The funding came from a gift from John D. Rockefeller.

                60

            • #
              OriginalSteve

              Ed, I think its worth mentioning that science and faith are not mutually exclusive. Isaac Newton was a keen theologian.

              Like the Big Lie of CAGW, the enormity of the occult underpinnings of the UN and the reality of Agenda 21 ( look at California right now for how its going to spin world wide ) make the whole thing too big for most people to get their heads around.

              I have no agenda beyond passing on what I’ve found over the last 20 years of research. The annoying thing is that often the most depressing stuff I point out are often correct. An old Intel maxim says “when things make no sense, you must seek other sense” – or apply a filter that does allow an extract of useable data from what seems to be weird. Engineers are supposed to be “squares” however when you see stuff happening that constantly fits a model based on the globalist occult world view/agenda, you need to pass that info on so people can make sense of what seems to be on the surface very random…until you apply the right filter.

              If the UN is able to drag all world leaders into a closed meeting, it says the UN has huge pull, way more than the USA itself if they all attend as “invited”. Look at who is the tail and who is the dog.

              70

              • #
                gai

                The reason for the attack on the Judeo-Christian religions is shown in Manfred’s contribution. The Greens’ Agenda, in Their Own Words

                It was Christianity in particular, building on both the Greek and Jewish traditions, that insisted on the dignity of all humans.[5] Humans should not be used as a means. Based on the belief that men and women are created in the image and likeness of God, the idea of intrinsic human dignity gradually shaped European civilisation….

                What the Green’s want is to reduce people to the same level as animals.

                … According to the Greens’ ideology, human dignity is neither inherent nor absolute, but relative.[35] Humans are only one species amongst others. As Brown and Singer write: “We hold that the dominant ethic is indefensible because it focuses only on human beings and on human beings who are living now, leaving out the interests of others who are not of our species, or not of our generation.”[36] Elsewhere, they equate humans with animals…

                Unfortunately there are lots of warm-fuzzy thinking young idiots out there with a bad case of The Bambi Syndrome who do not realize this thinking is a two edged sword. If humans are no better than animals there is ZERO reason not to treat them (the young idiots) as cattle.

                Fabian Co-founder, George Bernard Shaw, makes that thinking very clear.

                “We should find ourselves committed to killing a great many people whom we now leave living….

                A part of eugenic politics would finally land us in an extensive use of the lethal chamber. A great many people would have to be put out of existence simply because it wastes other people’s time to look after them.”

                Source: George Bernard Shaw, Lecture to the Eugenics Education Society, Reported in The Daily Express, March 4, 1910.
                …….

                “The moment we face it frankly we are driven to the conclusion that the community has a right to put a price on the right to live in it … If people are fit to live, let them live under decent human conditions. If they are not fit to live, kill them in a decent human way. Is it any wonder that some of us are driven to prescribe the lethal chamber as the solution for the hard cases which are at present made the excuse for dragging all the other cases down to their level, and the only solution that will create a sense of full social responsibility in modern populations?”

                Source: George Bernard Shaw, Prefaces (London: Constable and Co., 1934), p. 296.
                ……

                “Under Socialism, you would not be allowed to be poor. You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you liked it or not. If it were discovered that you had not character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner; but whilst you were permitted to live, you would have to live well.”

                George Bernard Shaw: The Intelligent Woman’s Guide to Socialism and Capitalism, 1928, pg. 470)

                Change human to cattle and it sounds just like a farmer. Cull the genetically defective and the non-producers in the herd. Provide decent living conditions because that keeps the herd productive. And above all else get rid of the independent thinkers because you want a docile domestic herd.

                60

        • #
          Martin

          Righto: To restore sanity and remove the green shackles imposed by Labor, the Coalition has been doing what?

          Zzzzzzzzz…

          Jensen on the front bench would be a good start. But after years of posturing, it may be too late.

          91

      • #
        Neville

        Jo I think you’re being unfair to the Coalition govt, at least they dumped the Co2 tax.
        The trouble is that there are many believers within the Libs and even the Nats. And some aren’t sure but think they have to be seen to do something. And that’s why we have the much cheaper DA scheme.
        But if people really think that there isn’t much difference between the parties then I guess they could vote Labor in and get a new co2 tax and see the budget wrecked beyond repair. Plus all the corruption we always see from the union thugs and blackmailers every time we vote in a new labor govt. Good luck with that.

        354

        • #
          el gordo

          Neville the Libs are pretty pathetic on climate change and the Nats aren’t happy.

          Sack Hunt!

          240

        • #

          The Liberals solution to the climate monster is so much better than the Labor-Green one.

          But Australia is not as advanced as the US — we don’t have potential PM’s willing to admit they are skeptics. There is no television medium in Australia which interviews skeptics except for one show a week on Sky cable news. Bolt.

          The US has Fox.

          Sack Hunt: Yes. Better yet, sack the ABC.

          451

        • #
          el gordo

          ‘Good luck with that.’

          Your fear that the nation will backslide is unlikely to come to fruition, in the electorates eyes DAP will pass muster in Paris.

          The point Jo made is valid, we need to eliminate the green/left bias at our ABC so that the people can have a balanced debate on climate change.

          Even some Labor and Green voters recognise that auntie has a lefty bias, so its about time Turnbull manned up. Otherwise history will see his lameness as willful neglect.

          http://www.essentialvision.com.au/abc-bias

          120

      • #

        It’s funny how that failure to ratify The Kyoto Protocol was always blamed on George W Bush. While it was originally signed by BillyJeff, The U.S. never did add that critical second signature, ratifying it, and thus agreeing to abide by all its legal requirements.

        What Bill Clinton did was to get his VP, Al Gore to take the Protocol ‘up the hill’ to The Senate, because, as a former Senator, Gore would have more sway with all his friends there, and he could then persuade them to agree to ratifying it. As it turned out, they did not even bother to present the bill to Congress after The Senate voted not to ratify the Protocol. Now you might think that the Clinton presidency might have been restricted by a Republican dominated Senate, but the vote in The Senate to NOT ratify the Kyoto Protocol was in fact 95-0, and read that again.

        95 – 0

        Not one Senator supported it, not even ONE Democrat, so it was a dead duck from the start.

        It then became so easy to just blame Bush for it, but it was all under Clinton.

        Tony.

        622

        • #
          toorightmate

          Hey Tony,
          These arguments have no room for facts.

          162

        • #
          John F. Hultquist

          Tony from OZ,
          You should come to the US and teach history!

          (Now, off topic …)
          You have advocated for pulling the plug so people can experience the consequences of their green-wishes. From NZ there is a somewhat similar thing going on except it is only threatened, dealing with property rights and not electricity. Homeowners are upset.
          http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/71585341/coastal-homeowners-in-christchurch-may-get-more-time-to-fight-new-zonings

          80

          • #
            gai

            Don’t miss the first bit about Christchurch:

            http://thedemiseofchristchurch.com/2012/11/29/hello-world/

            The Globalists are using a tragedy to push their Neo-Feudal Agenda 21 Transit Village idea.

            I have a strong suspicion that this is why Obama is stirring up Blacks vs police in the USA and the reason most of the coal plant closures are on the eastern seaboard where our oldest cities are.

            In 2007, 51 percent of U.S. electricity was generated by coal-fired power plants. The U.S. had 318 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity. By 2014 that had been reduced to a 39% share,

            The North American Electric Reliability Corporation’s (NERC) estimates that nearly a quarter of our coal-fired capacity could be off-line by 2018 and an additional 677 coal-fired units –258(??) gigawatts, would need to be temporarily shut down for 18 months to install EPA-mandated equipment. The window for compliance is only 3 years so around 1/2 of those needing retrofit have to go down at a time.

            This does not include ~ 1/3 of the Nuclear power plants also may be shuttered.

            ….To put 72 GW in perspective, that is enough electrical generation capacity to reliably power 44.7 million homes[3]—or every home in every state west of the Mississippi River, excluding Texas….
            …shuttering over one-fifth of the U.S.’s coal-fired generating capacity….
            http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/topics/policy/power-plant-closures/

            Now the estimate is up to a quarter of the plants shut (~79 GW)and ~1/2 of the rest of the plants temporarily off line.

            These plants are among the cheapest source of electricity generation in this country. NERC says electricity costs will increase by $366 billion between 2017 and 2031, and 43 states can expect double-digit rate increases each year (up to 20% a year). The Energy Information Administration (EIA), residential electricity prices are expected to be 16 percent higher in real prices than today.

            Even if the power companies can manage to keep the electricity flowing an increase of 10 to 20% a year adds up really quick and on top of that the Jobs that were coming back from China will disappear again.

            (The numbers are stolen from Institute for Energy Research and at least one is wrong or labeled incorrectly.)

            110

        • #
          jorgekafkazar

          Tony, it’s now traditional for US Democrats to blame GW Bush for EVERYTHING! That’s what they do best. When their doomed policies fail spectacularly, they already have their fingers pointing at Republicans.

          How much are they into Bush-Blame? Well, you can expect Judas Iscariot’s Wikipedia entry to be revised any day now.

          91

          • #
            Ted O'Brien.

            The first major economic announcement by the newly elected first Rudd government was that : “Howard (the previous conservative government) has let the inflation genie out of the bottle!”

            This was a barefaced lie, quite the opposite of the truth. So the message in that announcement was that the new government intended to engage in inflationary policy (with reckless spending) and blame the resulting inflation on Howard.

            That pre dated the GFC. The GFC enabled them to double their spree. However China’s continuing growth and demand for iron ore and coal provided sufficient cash to support their spree till the present time. We didn’t really have a GFC in Australia. Only now, nearly eight years on, is that inflation about to hit.

            Will this mean that the housing bubble on display in our major cities will burst not with a price collapse so much as with matching inflation in the rest of the economy?

            80

    • #

      The point is, there are too many “lukewarmers” and too few “deniers” (or, like me, defiers, though that means little since I have no influence on my own). The “greenhouse effect” should never have been taken seriously in climate science; it should have been laughed off the stage while still being bandied about by a few scientists, only at scientific gatherings, and never been allowed to metastasize into the public consciousness as an hysterical “meme”, or sacred “scientific” commandment. You are all going to have to “stand together” with my kind, not me with yours, lukewarmers — and that means showing some competence first of all in the DEFINITIVE evidence against the “consensus”. Do not accept the “greenhouse effect”, nor the “radiation transfer” theory with its “blackbody Earth”, AT ALL. No more “radiative forcings”! Ban the use of “W/m^2″ talking points, period, unless and until you can use them to explain, fully and precisely, why the Venus/Earth temperature ratio is due only to the ratio of the two planets’ distances from the Sun (very precisely so, outside of the cloud region on Venus). And you will never be able to do that; the radiative transfer theory is simply wrong, because it takes the temperature in the atmosphere to be due to radiative transfer, and thus reverses the true cause and effect in the real, essentially hydrostatic atmosphere (whose set vertical temperature structure–the constant lapse rate structure–rules over all, especially the LW radiation “measurements”).

      309

      • #
        Jason Delport

        Harry, I remain unconvinced re the GHE, but don’t know how to respond to the claims relating to the fact that deserts lose their heat at night due to very low humidity. Having experienced this myself and not having a counter argument, I end up in the vaguely “luke warmer” camp since this example appears to lend credence to a GHE. This would be further supported by the apparent correlation between cold, frosty mornings with a clear night sky. Is it the absence of clouds, low humidity or both resulting in increased outgoing radiation?

        Surely it should be possible to conduct a study whereby night time temperature loss is correlated with night time humidity and/or cloud cover. There should be ample data available to conduct such a study. Probably already been done to death by undergrads, but would be useful to know whether outgoing radiation can be definitively linked to humidity, with cloud cover being accounted for. This should be a simple way to prove / demonstrate the GHE once and for all, or lead to its refutation.

        90

        • #
          Jason Delport

          Further to my previous comment, surely there is a rural, arid region with max/min temperature records (and preferably humidity) going back to pre-1950′s? All one has to do is look at the trend in day to night temps during the dry spells to see if there is an increase in minimum temps correlated with time / CO2. If the correlation is there, corrected for humidity variation, then the CO2 GHE case is greatly strengthened. If the correlation is not there, you get bragging rights! I have to assume that I’m showing my naivety here, as surely this work has all been done during climate science 101?

          70

        • #
          mcraig

          I wonder if lack of vegetation is a factor in night cooling in deserts?

          60

        • #
          Andrew McRae

          Jason, the desert example is fine as long as it is interpreted in a way that fits everything else we observe.
          The fact that humid areas have cooler averages than deserts of the same latitude is frequently used by contrarians to cast doubt on the heating effect of a water vapour GHE. They have it backwards. The air is heated mainly through direct contact with the hot surface. Remember that high temperatures do not create droughts, droughts create high temperatures. This is because areas with rainfall have enough retained soil moisture that evaporation from the topsoil during the day creates an air-conditioning effect on the surface. A desert has no air-conditioning for the same reason it is a desert; rainfall is rare. Areas with plentiful water will have higher humidity and more natural air-conditioning.

          The warming reduction in cooling effect of the water vapour (through back-radiation) is more easily seen at night, just as you have experienced. Clouds are tiny liquid water droplets, so when clouds pass over the effect is even greater. You can see this backradiation in measurements. [SURFRAD, Table Mountain, Colorado, 23 Dec 2014.] Notice there is 200W/m^2 downwelling IR even at night time in winter. Compare to same location 23 June 2014, and note it is 320W/m^2 in summer. That is 1/4 of the power of the midday sun, but it’s coming from the air at night. As a substance must be a good absorber of IR to be a good emitter of IR, the observance of such radiation strongly supports a GHE, from water vapour at least.

          Of course all the radiances are higher in summer than winter due to higher temperature, but comparing the upwelling versus downwelling ratio shows another odd thing. The upwelling shortwave is ~ 16% of the downwelling shortwave in both summer and winter. However the upwelling IR is (300/200= ) 150% of downwelling IR during winter, yet the same IR ratio is (389/313= ) 124% during summer. Why is there more downwelling IR relative to the upwelling during summer? Well the higher humidity in summer versus winter is a likely explanation, because of the increased GHE of the additional water vapour. This is observational support for an enhanced GHE due to increasing the concentration of the main radiative gas, which is water vapour.

          None of the above tells you how much temperature difference the GHE makes, because that is far more complicated, and nobody understands it all. It should suffice to say that if you have ever held your hand under an electric griller then you know infra-red heats up objects. The GHE must have some effect on land temperature greater than zero. A combination of the above instrumental evidence and personal experience is all that is needed to reach that conclusion.

          81

          • #
            Peter C

            None of the above tells you how much temperature difference the GHE makes, because that is far more complicated, and nobody understands it all

            Indeed nobody does understand it all. That is why we are still arguing.

            I especially agree with James Bradley (below).

            You may be interested to know that new experimental results (by me), support the proposition that reflected radiation can slow heat loss from a passively cooling object. First step in the Greenhouse theory. Bad news for Slayers, and me. However there is a long way from this result to the Greenhouse theory. Lots of battles yet.

            I hope I can publish something be the weekend. I should do some verification before then.

            30

        • #
          tom0mason

          I believe that your desert hot days/cold nights have more to do with the lack of humidity, and evening/night rapid heat loss to the upper atmosphere. CO2 does nothing here, I can state with all the reliability of knowing no valid, verifiable experiments have been done in the deserts.
          Everyone is too busy measuring the ice cube size of the Arctic, or misdirecting fund to save some non-endangered species, or paper-shuffling funding applications to thousands of NGOs.

          Like the warmists, I offer an arguement from ignorance, but as neither me nor the UN-IPCC have the cash to fund such experiments in the desert, we’ll all blather on about it for ever.
          We’ll never know till some bright, financially enterprising young thing, does the legwork of going to the desert and actually measures what in tarnation goes on there! Measures all the valid parameters (time, sunlight, atmosheric pressure, humidity, temperature, etc…) from ground level to top of the tropopause — day after day, night after night, for as long as it takes to get a complete and overall picture of the way air masses over deserts behave. Then get the complete results published, without spin or reinterpretation.

          70

        • #
          • #
            tom0mason

            Thanks gai for that, a nice reminder — even though that large WUWT page take a dogs age to load (for me).

            Nice to see someone has tried to put the data together on desert temperatures and compares it to humid forested areas. Is there a scientific report for real world measurements for this type of comparison?
            Probably HH Lamb did something like this? (Just thinking out loud)

            I also agree so much with your comment about atmospheric water vapor (and the minute quantities of atmospheric carbonic acid – find IR interaction frequencies for carbonic acid, or other atmospheric acid vapors) –

            A quick search shows some work has been done on clouds, humidity and solar insolation but it is not something I (or my computer) could handle. I found this quite interesting since it is obvious from the chart at the top of this page that water vapor (not clouds) does effect the amount of surface insolation and I would expect to easily find information on it… info based on real life data collection and not models.

            Scientific info on real world mixed gas/water-vapor and aerosol parameters would sure be nice to have.

            40

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        It’s good this audience has reached the educational stage where enough people have wised up to Harry’s ruse that his Venus comments now receive as many downvotes as upvotes.
        For those new to the game, the situation is:
         • On his own web site in comments he admits that his planetary temperature formula does not work for Titan as it predicts a temperature 7 degrees different from measurements.
         • The same major factor (albedo) missing from his formula has been pointed out by other blog visitors and at other blogs on at least three prior occasions, to which Harry only repeats his assertions.
         • I have also explained as succinctly as I could why his reasoning was wrong on 14 June, why albedo is thermodynamically required, and how including albedo results in the (simplistic no-GHE) predicted temperature on Venus being far colder than the measured value (which neither proves nor contradicts a Greenhouse effect).
         • New comments do not work on Harry’s blog and Harry never replies to comments made here on JN, so he is in papal encyclical broadcast mode only.

        Probably there will be no reply from Harry to this comment either.

        121

        • #
          tom0mason

          Andrew McRae
          You are correct on so many grounds!

          80

          • #
            Andrew McRae

            Thanks Tom, but I was wrong about one thing.
            There were 3 downvotes and no upvotes on Harry’s comment when I began writing my reply. I refreshed the page just before submitting it, and at that point there were as many upvotes as downvotes. Since then you can see that the kneejerk “team player” types have been reading the first sentence of his comment and then clicking upvote as soon as they’ve identified that Harry is on their side, regardless of whether his argument is nonsense.
            I used an insufficient sample size to overestimate the readers of JN, so I was mistaken about that.

            120

            • #
              James Bradley

              Andrew,

              Don’t get bent out of shape over it.

              It may be that on balance and considering a number of the statements in that post – rather than reject the post totally some markers felt they could agree with more of the entire post than disagree with it.

              Not everyone suffers from the herd mentality.

              I particularly liked “Do not accept the “greenhouse effect”, nor the “radiation transfer” theory with its “blackbody Earth”, AT ALL. No more “radiative forcings”! Ban the use of “W/m^2″ talking points… ” because it was emotive, but found that there was not enough for me to mark Harry either way so I left it.

              70

              • #
                Andrew McRae

                Okay, James.
                Fair enough.

                Value is subjective. If people want to upvote fallacious emotive arguments just for the spectacle and entertainment factor, I should not inhibit them from expressing their enjoyment in that way.

                I have learned my lesson, I will not complain about undeserved upvotes/downvotes unless I have first been told why the votes were awarded.

                That would probably be a very popular wordpress plugin – to show a popup list of comment rating options which include a primary reaction category as well as the -1 or +1.
                eg:
                [+1 :cool: Agreed], [+1 :-P Laughed], [+1 :-? Good Question],
                [-1 :-( Disagreed], [-1 :evil: Offensive], [-1 :roll: Offtopic/Spam]

                No idea whether such a thing exists already.

                80

              • #
                James Bradley

                Andrew,

                That doesn’t read of repentance at all.

                Just put me down for +1Agreed

                (sorry the smiley face thing eludes me).

                20

      • #
        Ted O'Brien.

        Harry, I remind you that in 1986 the Hawke government replaced the management of the CSIRO with a new board of partisan appointments.

        Since then the science has been politics.

        71

        • #
          Dennis

          Partisan appointments, manipulation of public service including the judiciary, media management, skilful containment of anti-corruption watchdogs has been Union’s Labor policy since the 1970s, Commonwealth and States. And the web is extremely difficult to unravel, particularly when at Commonwealth the Senate is dominated by anti-government people. The preferential system of voting, and that all states have the same number of senate seats regardless of state population has created a situation in which government business is swept aside. A recent example was legislation to require trade unions to operate to the same regulations as public companies are required to comply with.

          80

      • #
        Konrad

        I’m going to ignore the red thumbs and agree with Harry. He has two things right.

        First, there are too many lukewarmers and not enough hard sceptics. Sure some hard sceptics don’t understand enough radiative physics or fluid dynamics, but some understand far more than the climastrologists. The problem here is the lukewarmers don’t understand but fear looking foolish, so they pack attack hard sceptics for supposedly “making sceptics look bad”. This traps lukewarmers in the “umm, err, CO2 might cause some warming” argument from ignorance trap. They even accept the term “greenhouse gas” even though this is clearly Orwellian Newspeak that presupposes a net radiative GHE.

        Second, Harry is right, there is no NET atmospheric radiative GHE on this planet.
        Yes, CO2 can absorb and thermalise LWIR.
        Yes, if conductively heated, CO2 will emit LWIR.
        Yes, radiative gases in our atmosphere can slow the exit of surface LWIR to space.
        Yes, LWIR from the atmosphere can slow the radiative cooling of land surfaces.

        But the question is what is the NET effect of our radiative atmosphere on atmospheric and surface temperatures?

        First atmospheric temperatures -
        the atmosphere is gains energy in four main ways
        1. Surface conduction
        2. Release of latent heat of evaporation.
        3. Interception of surface LWIR (less than 1/3 of net flux into the atmosphere).
        4. Direct interception of incoming solar.

        the atmosphere is loses energy in two ways -
        1. Emission of LWIR to space. (the primary mechanism).
        2. Conduction back to the surface. (weak and ineffective).

        The net effect of radiative gases on atmospheric temperatures is therefore cooling.

        Second, surface. What is the net effect of our radiatively cooled atmosphere on surface temperatures. This can be determined by correctly calculating the average “surface without radiative atmosphere” figure and comparing it to current average of 288K (15C). Climastrologists claim 255K (-18C) for surface without atmosphere (that’s where they get their 33K for radiative GHE from). But they simply plugged 240 w/m2 into the Stefan-Boltzmann equation with emissivity and absorptivity set to unity. This effectively treats the oceans as opaque to solar radiation and constantly illuminated.

        But empirical experiment clearly shows that you cannot use the S-B equation to determine surface temperature for solar heating of water. That 255K is out by around 80K for 71% of our planets surface. If “surface without radiative atmosphere” should be over 300K and our current average is 288K, what does that tell us about the net effect of our radiatively cooled atmosphere on surface temperatures?

        142

        • #
          Konrad

          “is gains”? “is loses”? Well that certainly deserved a red thumb… no argument there.

          I blame lack of Laphroaig. But it’s my own fault. I gave my Laphroaig budget to Michael Smith for his efforts. My bad.

          Which reminds me, Jo also has a Tip Jar. Do I need to remind you? Climate science cannot advance without open discussion websites. The pal reviewed journals are now an intellectual backwater.

          100

        • #
          Just-A-Guy

          Konrad,

          You wrote:

          the atmosphere is loses energy in two ways . . .

          It seems you may have left out the energy lost due to work done by expanding air as it rises by convection.

          Am I right?

          Abe

          10

    • #

      “In passing, I have to say that George Bush Jr, a president not usually noted for his subtlety, played Kyoto beautifully; instruct the delegates to accept commitments which were so extreme, they never stood a snowflake’s chance in hell of getting ratified by Congress. I think the accord was safely refused ratification at a later date by a vote of ninety-four to zero. Everyone at Kyoto was pleased the States had committed to something and months later, everyone at home was pleased that they hadn’t. Everyone was happy in the end. Who says you can’t have your cake and eat it?”

      https://thepointman.wordpress.com/2011/11/18/the-durban-debacle-awaits/

      Despite all the machinations behind closed doors, the political will just isn’t there. Yes, they’ll indulge a second term president on the way out who’s desperately casting about for a legacy from the wreckage of his domestic policy (Detroit et al) and foreign policy (Ukraine, Lybia, Irag and most humiliatingly Iran), and they will trumpet it as a great triumph whatever happens.

      A couple of executive orders by his successor will roll back all the stealth legislation in an afternoon. Presidential executive orders are a two edged sword …

      Pointman

      190

      • #
        Leigh

        The biggest obstacle and I do mean obstacle, any new president is going to have in winding back Obama’s global warming madness.
        Is the Environmental Protection Agency.
        “Sticking” a bit of that two edged sword you mention up em is a little easier said than done.
        Like “our” ABC, they are simply a law unto themselves.
        The power they weild is far beyond their station as a government funded entity.
        Both need some serious culling.

        90

        • #

          I’d agree. The combination of executive orders and EPA legislation has been used in effect to enact legislation that would never get through Congress. The former can be reversed in a day but the latter as you note will not be as easy.

          The way forward with the EPA I think is to take a page out of the Obama administration’s playbook. Replace all the senior managers with ones more favourable to a lighter regulatory touch. Failing that, downsize or disband the whole organisation. In the meantime, the individual States are fighting a good delaying action in the courts which is jamming up any implementation of either.

          It’s only got to last to next year’s presidential election.

          Pointman

          60

      • #
        NZPete

        Excellent point, Pointman. I do like your thinking – gives cause for hope in this utter shambles.
        Meanwhile… people continue to die.

        10

    • #

      o we’ll be ready in the next millennium or so for climate spare change or some such thang. swing the axe, roo-babies!

      10

  • #
    gnome

    Surely they can’t meet without the 40,000 or so representatives of NGOs, pressure groups, minor sectional interests and unemployable demonstrators? Only elected heads of state? It’s the end of democracy as we know it.

    212

    • #

      Get with the game gnome. :-) This junket is the leaders without the riff raff. Decisions may even get made. Leaders want the personal contact with other leaders without all the middle men hanger-onerers.

      Paris is the junket for the riff-raff and obedient supporters. It’s a showcase grand theater.

      I would guess that the important stuff is occurring well in advance — like right now.

      482

      • #
        Yonniestone

        I can’t wait for the ‘Climate Games 21′ Jo, I believe the opening ceremony will imitate the story of Faust with the orchestra wheeled about on a huge bandwagon.

        A media teaser was released with a photo of the performers yesterday.

        80

      • #
        James Bradley

        I think Jo is correct,

        This is where the pressure is brought to bear and where the real deals get done.

        The proof of this will be an examination of statements from attendees (particularly recalcitrant attendees) before and then after this meeting.

        Don’t forget folks (as my Regional Commander once told me) “If you’re sitting around the conference table and you can’t figure out who the bunny is – it’s probably you.”

        150

        • #
          Ross

          James and Jo are right.

          But this meeting smacks of absolute desperation by the UN.

          Why are they not over in Europe pulling together a leaders meeting to help solve the refugee issue. Oh that’s right, that would involve doing work they were originally set up for –cannot have that.

          140

        • #

          Caesar:
          Who is it in the press that calls on me?
          I hear a tongue shriller than all music
          Cry “Caesar!” Speak, Caesar is bound to
          hear.

          Soothsayer: Beware the Ides of March.

          Soothsayer says ‘Don’t go, Tony!’

          90

        • #

          The problem is James, we won’t know what deals or threats are “bundled” — because it’s behind closed doors. Someone may appear to change position and they will say it’s because of “new data” or “public wishes” but who knows why it really happened. Does anyone want a sweet UN position a few years from now? Is there some other trade agreement that would help in domestic politics?

          120

          • #
            Bobl

            I have written to the pm, voicing my concern that we are wasting money on this trash, and suggested rather than taxing grannies into fuel poverty, perhaps they could tax Greenpeace to pay for the green boondoggles.

            Maybe we should raise a petition to have ngo organisations taxed to pay for global warming action, since they are the most vocal, I’m sure they won’t mind paying.

            I believe that govt grants and tax free status should not be given to any organisation that is involved in political lobbying.

            81

            • #

              PRIORITY ONE: We need to make sure all our governments are talking to skeptical politicians everywhere: Aust, US, Canadian, NZ and UK governments, plus India, China, Brazil if we can. They need to be aligned, so that they are not fooled by the constant propaganda that “everyone is on board”.

              Lines of communication need to be opened up so that the truth of the strong bedrock of skepticism in all these nations is known to all.

              United we stand, divided…

              If skeptics were to connect up the right people in pairs of countries that would be very useful. Please email your representatives now. If you know of a sympathetic MP, perhaps ask them who is going to Paris, ask them if they know …. eg Marc Morano in the US who can connect them with skeptical congress members. We need lists of key people in each nation. Benny Peiser in the UK and Lord Lawson know who are the skeptical MP’s there. Who has the connections in NZ, and Canada?

              110

              • #
                farmerbraun

                The problem in Godzone is that ,while most of the present government are sceptical,the trade minister must be seen by his “superiors” to be toeing the line.
                N.Z lives or dies by its trading links.
                Of course our trade minister also has his eye on a position at the U.N.
                He will continue to make all the right noises in the right places.
                It is only the ACT party which displays any scientific rigour on AGW.

                50

          • #
            James Bradley

            Jo,

            You don’t need to know ‘why’ the deal was done initially, just that it was done, and the post-conference press releases will confirm it.

            Remember you are dealing with politicians, and if any have had a sudden change of heart they will fall all over themselves to justify: the what, the where, and the how – from that you can deduce the ‘why’ if you really care to.

            30

    • #
      Leonard Lane

      Will Rogers said something like Nobody’s pocket book is safe when Congress is in session.
      I suppose the same is the case here, none of us are safe when world “leaders” meet in secret to divide the enormous pie of taxpayer funds.

      100

  • #
    William

    Ahhhh Gordo?
    What exactly is Australia doing to benefit the skeptic side?
    Last I looked Australia had rolled over and joined the crowd. They have thrown up some window dressing, but there is nothing behind the curtains.
    The current government went to the election on the basis that they would dump all the global warming garbage.
    Then they got elected.
    Then they noticed the gravy train, and stuck their snouts into it.
    In other words, they decided their jobs were worth more than their principles or their promises to their electorate.

    284

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      My cynical view of the Liberal Party government’s announcement today of dumping the Bank Levy is that they are hoping to sweeten their right wing support base before they later announce an Australian greenhouse emissions reduction treaty in December. All a foregone conclusion.

      And if it isn’t a foregone conclusion, we’ve got 25 days to figure out how to become the Merchants of Doubt that Naomi Klein has claimed we always were. Naomi has confidence in our abilities. It would be awful to disappoint her. On the other hand I’m feeling decidedly underfunded at this point, my PR budget being zero.

      200

    • #
      el gordo

      William they won the election with the promise to eliminate the tax on CO2 and stop the boats. They accomplished both in their first year.

      Abbott is on record as saying the science on climate change is crap, but first and foremost he is a political pragmatist and has bent to the wishes of Bishop and Hunt, along with other members of the front bench and kowtow to the international community.

      For them it has nothing to do with snouts in troughs, they just want to be reelected and they are fearful the electorate will throw them out if they say CO2 doesn’t cause global warming and we aren’t going to Paris.

      Imagine the headlines in the Guardian, Fairfax, ABC and SBS.

      160

      • #
        Dennis

        Tony Abbott is also on record for his comment that he would not stand for socialism masquerading as environmentalism.

        And recently managed to arrange for a cap on the RET much to the annoyance of the industry players.

        And let’s not forget the Christopher Monckton video warning Australians that Tony Abbott faces enormous pressure from international and local sources because he is not cooperating.

        110

      • #
        William

        Gordo:
        Yes TA did stop the boats. But he has just re-badged the carbon tax; it is still in effect. I look at my quarterly power bills and I see the results of his lack of action.
        His subsequent actions on climate issues, and most other issues, demonstrate his pandering to the left, while ignoring his conservative base.
        Add to this his betrayal of fundamental issues of democratic principles, like 18c and we see a man who is more intent on keeping his job than doing what needs to be done.
        Notice his pitiful support of Hayden and the Royal Commission into Union Corruption. Notice his failure to draw the connection between Hayden and the Andrew Bolt case. The AB case was judged by a Labor hard left judge who ruled on ideological grounds. Where was TA when that occurred? Why has TA not yet trumpeted this at every press conference?
        At least TA and the Liberals are consistent in their failure to defend Libertarian principles and the rule of law.
        Recall also that he went into the election promising that he would call a double dissolution within six months if his agenda was blocked.
        Well, there are two problems with that: he has no agenda, and he has gone very quiet on the double dissolution. He is worried about the headlines in “The Guardian”? Very true. Unfortunately, he is not worried about the votes of his conservative base.
        So yes, he is worried about being thrown out at the next election. But he fails to realize that he will be thrown out because ex-Liberal voters like me will not be voting for him.

        53

        • #

          The carbon tax is still in effect. Well, not really, but the retailers have umm, found another way to rebadge the raise in the cost of power under another name.

          I’ve lost count of the number of times I got into trouble for saying that Labor’s Carbon (Dioxide) Tax almost DOUBLED the cost of generating the power. Everyone jumped immediately on top of me.

          I did that for a specific reason, and got the desired result virtually every time.

          The cost of generating coal fired power ranges between 2.5 and 3.2 cents per KWH, and look at your latest power bill to see how much you pay for your electricity at retail cost.

          The imposition of that CO2 Tax raised the cost of coal fired power to around 5.2 to 6.2 cents per KWH, which in effect was a almost a doubling of the cost of generating coal fired power.

          As soon as I very carefully explained just that, there was only one response.

          Everybody has a (rough) idea of what they pay at retail for their power, and as soon as I explained it, the ONLY response I got was ….. “Is it really that cheap?”

          The cost of generating coal fired power is barely 8 to 11% of your total power bill.

          Labor got away with by saying it was ….. “pshaw, it’s nothing really, hardly even an increase at all.” It was close to 13% in some States, but that cost was only calculated on the retail cost.

          You can make people think, just in the way you word things you put to them.

          I would then ask them how much money this Tax was costing, say, a large power generating Company, like, umm, Maquarie Generation, the company which owned Bayswater for instance. When I mentioned it was more than $600 Million a year, and again, there were incredulous looks.

          Tony.

          91

          • #
            Dennis

            The high profit margin enjoyed by the electricity providers who bill consumers is obvious when they offer discounts as high as 22% (latest) to consumers who will stick with them and pay bills on or before time. The charge rate at retail level is obviously based on renewables so the cost of coal fired electricity supplies is far cheaper. So the bulk of electricity carries a substantial profit margin.

            60

            • #

              When mentioning this to anyone who asks, I only have to add that even at that low cost for the generating of coal fired power, those entities operating the plants are still making a profit.

              It gives people an entirely different view of the matter.

              There’s a good reason why renewables can get away with saying that the cost of their power adds so little to the overall cost, and that renewables are not as costly as they are made out to be.

              All the power is just basically at the grid, and the retailers say that they will buy X amount. It’s all costed in together and they just pay that overall cost for the total that they purchase.

              Coal fired power comes in at around the 3 cents per KWH I mentioned. It makes up more than 80% of a huge amount.

              When you add on the 1 to 4% (depending on where you are) that wind power makes up, then that tiny amount, adds only fractions of a cent up to 2 cents per KWH, so in effect, electricity generation cost still looks cheap at (sometimes as high as) 6.5 cents per KWH.

              So, the wind people point at that and declare that wind is cheap.

              That’s how they get away with it.

              The same applies with that FIT for rooftop solar. The retailers are even adding on anything up to 10 cents per KWH for every customer in their billing base, on top of their already contracted cost, which can be as high as 40 cents per KWH Plus.

              The amount actually being returned is so infinitesimally low, that it barely registers on an individual bill, but when you have around a million clients, that fraction of a cent extra builds up to a healthy amount, and in fact, even buying at that cost, and then adding on that tiny fraction, they are still making a profit on that rooftop solar because everyone is paying for it, and that’s not just in the residential sector, but across the 100% mix for the sale of all electricity to every consumer, residential, commerce and industry.

              I often quote The Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant in San Luis Obispo in California, which sells its electricity into the California grid at just on 1 cent per KWH, and they still make a profit. This plant generates 18,500GWH of power each and every year. At that 1 cent per KWH, that’s an annual income just from the sale of electricity of $185 Million.

              So, you can see that when you are generating humungous amounts of electricity, that’s why it’s so damned cheap. Take that away and the cost of electricity will skyrocket.

              Renewable power use every artifice known to man to make their power ….. seem cheap, when the only reason it seems so cheap is because coal fired power makes it appear that way.

              Tony.

              PostScript – I have somewhat simplified this for ease of understanding.

              130

        • #
          el gordo

          ‘So yes, he is worried about being thrown out at the next election.’

          The next election will be fought over climate change and we look forward to the battle ahead.

          50

          • #
            William

            Gordo:
            If only that were true.
            A fight usually requires at least two participants.
            Unfortunately, in Australia we have the political left engaged in a battle with no opponent.
            With no opponent, Labor is a shoo in at the next election. The only issue is how big their victory will be.
            Australia is screwed.

            13

  • #
    Another Ian

    Jo

    Early with a probable O/T but seems to fit into the awareness

    “The first rule of “mainstream” news coverage in America.”

    And not only in America IMO

    http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/2015/09/your-moral-and-310.html

    And link

    61

    • #
      Hugh

      Crap. They fooled me again. They didn’t tell me he was insane black gay. They told me he was racially oppressed insane person.

      As said, were he White, We’d be discussing on regulating guns. Now We are discussing racism.

      And fck this spellchecker in this phone.

      —-
      Guys, really, too off topic. Please move to the unthreaded. Thanks Jo

      20

  • #
    Dariusz

    ” The industry is worth $1.5 trillion a year already”
    Worth to whom I wonder. This is not worth, this is money spent, 2 different things.

    172

    • #

      Dariusz, it is worth $1.5 trillion to all the people on the green gravy train who would not make this money otherwise. :- (

      But you are right. I should be more careful of my language. I will fix it.

      110

  • #
    toorightmate

    I am going to suggest to Banki that each representative sits atop a step ladder.

    Then it can be high level meeting.

    141

  • #
    David Maddison

    There is a single number that surely should make people sit up and take notice apart from anything else:

    Less than 3.5% of all CO2 in the atmosphere is of anthropogenic origin. Even if CO2 were a “powerful” greenhouse gas, surely it is obvious that any anthropogenic effect would be insignificant?

    Surely?

    271

    • #
      Konrad

      Our atmosphere contains 20,000 ppm of radiative gases, mostly H2O.

      Even is we falsely accept that humans raised CO2 by 100 ppm, that’s still only 0.5% of all radiative gases in the atmosphere. (and CO2 is a worthless radiative gas, typically absorbing and emitting at bands the surface doesn’t really emit LWIR at). Human emissions could add to our radiatively cooled atmosphere’s cooling ability, but we’d never be able to measure it.

      70

  • #
    ROM

    1 1995: COP 1, The Berlin Mandate
    2 1996: COP 2, Geneva, Switzerland
    3 1997: COP 3, The Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change
    4 1998: COP 4, Buenos Aires, Argentina
    5 1999: COP 5, Bonn, Germany
    6 2000: COP 6, The Hague, Netherlands
    7 2001: COP 6, Bonn, Germany
    8 2001: COP 7, Marrakech, Morocco
    9 2002: COP 8, New Delhi, India
    10 2003: COP 9, Milan, Italy
    11 2004: COP 10, Buenos Aires, Argentina
    12 2005: COP 11/CMP 1, Montreal, Canada
    13 2006: COP 12/CMP 2, Nairobi, Kenya
    14 2007: COP 13/CMP 3, Bali, Indonesia
    15 2008: COP 14/CMP 4, Poznań, Poland
    16 2009: COP 15/CMP 5, Copenhagen, Denmark
    17 2010: COP 16/CMP 6, Cancún, Mexico
    18 2011: COP 17/CMP 7, Durban, South Africa
    19 2012: COP 18/CMP 8, Doha, Qatar
    20 2013: COP 19/CMP 9, Warsaw, Poland
    21 2014: COP 20/CMP 10, Lima, Peru
    22 2015: COP 21/CMP 11, Paris, France

    “The definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

    Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.

    Martin Luther King, Jr.

    320

    • #
      Captain Dave

      Actually, I believe Einstein said that was the definition of insanity. Still applicable, though.

      80

      • #
        ROM

        Captain Dave @ # 9.1

        You are quite correct and it was my bad not to include Albert Einstein as the author of that quote, a point I realised after I went back some time later and reread my post again.

        Another rather famous quote from Einstein that is highly applicable to the entire CAGW / climate change debacle and its believers is;

        Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.
        Albert Einstein.

        Reference sources for the above list ;
        Quotes from Brainy Quotes under the heading of Stupidity

        List of COPs from Wiki ; United Nations Climate Change conference

        50

      • #
        Leigh

        I particularly like this one.

        “Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.”
        Albert Einstein

        Some of these global alarmists and politicians, would do well to think of that quote before opening their mouths.

        60

    • #
      Bob Campbell

      What does COP stand for ?
      Please.

      00

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        My understanding is that it stands for “Conference Of the Parties”.

        40

        • #
          ROM

          UNFCC = United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
          ——-
          COP = UNFCCC Parties (Conferences of the Parties)
          ——-
          CMP = “Conference of the Parties Serving as the Meeting of Parties to the Kyoto Protocol”
          ——
          IPCC = Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
          ——
          HadCRUT = Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office.
          ——
          Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia = (CRU)

          [ HadCRUT is the dataset of monthly instrumental temperature records formed by combining the sea surface temperature records compiled by the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office and the land surface air temperature records compiled by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia.]
          ——
          NASA = National Aeronautics and Space Administration
          ———
          [ NASA's ] GISS = Goddard Institute for Space Studies
          ——-
          GISTEM = GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

          Not to be trusted at all due to severe manipulation of the data.
          ——-
          NOAA = National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
          ——–
          [ NOAA's ] NCDC = “National Climatic Data Center”

          now changed to;

          [ NOAA's ] NCEI = “National Center for Environmental Information”
          ———–
          [ NASAs ] UAH = University of Alabama Huntsville ;

          Satellite based temperature analysis now increasingly used as it is regarded as along with the RSS satellite data as the only temperature data bases that are free from Deliberate manipulation of the data despite a lot of corrections to derive global temperatures from the satellite sensors.
          ———-
          [ NASA's ] RSS = Remote Sensing Systems.

          Satellite based as above; The satellite temperature sensing systems are the ONLY systems that can and do collect temperature data from the entire global surface.

          ALL other temperature data collection systems depend totally upon the point data from the few hundred stations scattered across the worlds land surfaces.
          ———
          GHCN = Global Historical Climatology Network .

          The main global temperature network that provides the historical and current data, much of a doubtful quality, on which the entire climate claims at every level are based.
          ———-
          QCLCD = Quality Controlled Local Climatological Data .

          Quality Controlled Local Climatological Data (QCLCD) consist of hourly, daily, and monthly summaries for approximately 1,600 U.S. locations.
          ———–
          COOP = Cooperative Observer Network
          ———-
          USHCN = US. Historical Climatology Network

          Heavily corrupted in the data processing along with badly sited stations and now replaced by;

          USCRN = U.S. Climate Reference Network

          Which uses just 114 stations in contiguous USA, two in Hawaii and 29 in Alaska which are no doubt there to emphasis the warming and [ non ] melting Arctic Ice pack
          ————
          GOSIC = Global Observing Systems Information Center;
          ———–
          ASOS = Automated Surface Observing System

          Automated Surface Observing System (ASOS) units are automated sensor suites that are designed to serve meteorological and aviation observing needs. There are currently more than 900 ASOS sites in the United States.
          Usually located on airports where jet turbine exhausts can blast them thus recording record temperatures to cover the climate modellers and warmista’s hot house warming claims [ /sarc ]
          ———–
          AWOS= Automated Weather Observing System ;

          Automated Weather Observing System (AWOS) units are operated and controlled by the Federal Aviation Administration. These systems are among the oldest automated weather stations and predate ASOS.

          —————–

          And thats just scratching the surface of the number of the highly paid and very expensive official outfits that are totally reliant on the tax payer’s dollar to keep spreading screaming headline propaganda on the hot house hell that mankind is facing, which in the climate catastrophe vernacular is always post-scripted with the phrase, “unless we do something!

          100

          • #
            AndyG55

            “USCRN = U.S. Climate Reference Network

            Which uses just 114 stations in contiguous USA, two in Hawaii and 29 in Alaska which are no doubt there to emphasis the warming and [ non ] melting Arctic Ice pack

            And which shows COOLING since it was established in 2005.

            The rate of COOLING in USCRN is a reasonably close match to the rate of COOLING in RSS and UAH in the USA, (UAH shows slightly less COOLING), thus VALIDATING the methodology of temperature extraction of UAH and RSS..

            GISS and its stable mates, (any data relying on the massively corrupted GHCN from GISS) hold very little relationship to reality.

            90

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Interesting ROM
            The cost of just working out the acronyms let alone feeding them must have been stupendous.

            KK

            60

  • #
    David Maddison

    The Red Thumb Troll or Trolls are out in force tonight. Oddly, they are incapable of refuting any science-based comment here, thus, again proving that they believe in a political or religious ideology, not science.

    232

  • #
    David Maddison

    I would like to know what proportion of the Paris-ites (and Red Thumb Trolls) fly to Paris in First, Business and Economy classes, as well as private, chartered or government owned aircraft.

    161

    • #
      ROM

      David @ #11

      I would ask a somewhat different question of the Paris-ites

      How many of you, the attendees, the Paris-ites, are there ENTIRELY AT YOUR OWN EXPENSE and have not taken a cent off anybody else or have been fully tax payer funded to attend or have accepted donations or are being paid or are sponsored to attend the Paris COP?

      As the COP is being held in Europe, in Paris, with all it’s communication and transport systems to the rest of Europe there will be a percentage, probably a very small percentage, minute in fact, who are entirely self funded Paris-ites.

      But I suspect the the vast majority of the Paris-ites are just that, “Parasites” in the true meaning of the word, “Parasites” on the rest of humanity, a humanity that has been shaken down to provide the lavish funds required to attend the COP and all its extraneous and lavishly provided and very expensive bacchanalian activities that have become a standard part and parcel of these UN sponsored events.

      180

    • #
      Annie

      I had already noted, again, how much they love their tourism. All paid for by the rest of us no doubt and to no useful purpose whatever.

      60

    • #
      handjive

      theGuardian:

      Air France, along with EDF, Engie and other firms are partly sponsoring the COP21 Paris climate talks in December

      “Fossil fuel firms and big carbon emitters sponsoring the Paris climate summit in December are “a part of the problem” that delegates will address, but their patronage was unavoidable for financial reasons, senior French climate officials say.”

      120

  • #
    tom0mason

    Big Money Elitists v The Rest of Us.

    Who will you bet on to win the deal of the century?
    Who will be left shivering on the hunger step?
    Who, in your name, is throwing your hard won freedoms to the UN elitists?

    150

    • #
      Dave in the states

      Right on point tomOmason. The politicos who are pushing for these policies are the same who profess to represent, the poor, the needy, the powerless, and the working class, the little guy being pushed around by the rich and powerful elites. What hypocrites!!

      It is the poor and the needy, and the not- working class, who will shoulder the burdens of these expensive, ineffective, and unneeded policies. Our progenitors considered no price too high to win and preserve freedom, but our generation is spending trillions to promote what will be tyranny instead.

      Why do our political officials and ministers, who we elect not point this out?

      70

    • #
      Bob Malloy

      Written by Richard Harris about a different conflict in a different time, to me these selected lines from Two Many Saviours on My Cross are relevant once again.

      There are too many saviours on my cross,
      lending their blood to flood out my ballot box with needs of their own.
      Who put you there?
      Who told you that that was your place?

      The antiquated Saxon sword,
      rusty in its scabbard of time now rises—
      you gave it cause in my name,
      bringing shame to the thorned head
      that once bled for your salvation.

      What masked and bannered men can rock the ark
      and navigate a course to their anointed kingdom come?
      Who sailed their captain to waters that they troubled in my font,
      sinking in the ignorant seas of prejudice?

      I included the 2nd paragraph for the Pope and Obama who have both placed themselves above their station when it comes to Global Warming, Climate Change, what ever it is this week!

      80

  • #
    tom0mason

    Interesting.

    Why did my comment go straight to moderation?

    tom0mason
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    September 1, 2015 at 11:03 pm · Reply

    Sorry. No idea. They mysteries of the organic moderation filter? – Jo

    80

  • #
    pat

    the AFR piece is Bloomberg’s, written by Ewa Krukowska and Alex Nussbaum.

    AFP wrote about it a few days ago in a piece on this week’s Bonn talks! the meetings never stop. the cost? imagine if all this money were put to good use and politicians focused on basic domestic issues:

    29 Aug: AFP: Mariette Le Roux: Clock ticking as climate negotiators meet in Bonn
    All eyes will be on Bonn to see if the ministerial rapprochement on this issue filters through.
    “Just trying to get a bit of the spirit of the ministerials back into Bonn would be great,” Liz Gallagher, climate diplomacy leader at the E3G think tank, told AFP.
    Alden Meyer, an analyst with the Washington-based Union for Concerned Scientists, said there must be close coordination between negotiators and their political bosses.
    “Negotiators need to do the job of clarifying where things stand, framing options very sharply,” he said.
    “But then it’s really the ministers and the leaders that have to find some of the landing zones, some of the compromises.”
    ‘No planet B’
    Ministers will next meet in Paris on September 6-7, and again in October in Lima at an IMF-World Bank pow-wow with climate finance on the agenda.

    ***On September 27, Ban Ki-moon and heads of state will talk climate on the sidelines of a UN summit in New York.
    While these talks are not part of official negotiations, they should guide the pact-crafting efforts.
    “The political decisions and compromises are going to be made above the paygrade of the negotiators,” said Meyer…

    There will be a final pre-Paris negotiating round, also five days, in Bonn in October…
    French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius: “Last year was the hottest on record. It seems that this year will be even hotter. There is no plan B, there is no planet B.”
    http://news.yahoo.com/clock-ticking-climate-negotiators-meet-bonn-050625079.html

    1 Sept: Climatewed.org: Momentum For Action Reaches New Heights @UN Bonn #Climate Talks
    A week-long UN climate negotiations began on Monday in Bonn, Germany as negotiators continue to make progress before meeting in in Paris in December to finalize a comprehensive and universal climate agreement. This agreement should protect people from climate risks and signal the end of the fossil fuel era.
    On the opening of the talks, members of the Climate Action Network (CAN) commented on expectations from the gathering. The CAN is a global network of over 900 NGOs working to promote government and individual action to limit human-induced climate change to ecologically sustainable levels.
    Tasneem Essop, WWF: “Political momentum building outside the climate negotiations is putting pressure for greater progress inside the climate talks. All the efforts of people – through the declarations, mobilizations and actions – must translate into a meaningful deal being agreed in Paris. And while the UNFCCC is one but site of struggle for climate justice, it is an important one. We need to capitalize on the Paris moment to reflect the urgency and secure a climate-safe future.”
    Martin Kaiser, Greenpeace: “It has long been clear that the submitted and expected INDCs won’t add up to the level of commitment needed to prevent catastrophic global warming. As a result, the agreement in Paris needs to be structured to scale up action…That goal needs to lead to a phase out of fossil fuels and deliver 100% renewable energy by mid-century.”…
    Alix Mazounie, RAC France: “Finance is one of the core missing pieces from the draft agreement here in Bonn. The silence around financial commitments after 2020 is deafening, and the growing public finance gap in the existing commitments is not sending the political signal that developing countries need. Developed countries must understand that accounting tricks alone and political declarations will not solve the bigger climate finance issue. Even French President François Hollande, host of the talks in December, has acknowledged that climate finance is key to any agreement in Paris…
    http://www.climatewed.org/2015/09/momentum-for-action-reaches-new-heights.html

    60

    • #

      pat mentions this: (my bolding here)

      A week-long UN climate negotiations began on Monday in Bonn, Germany as negotiators continue to make progress before meeting in in Paris in December to finalize a comprehensive and universal climate agreement. This agreement should protect people from climate risks and signal the end of the fossil fuel era.

      Yeah! Right! Of course it will.

      Hey, just imagine eh.

      No cars at all, and I mean NO cars at all, because there’ll be no electric cars either, as there will be no electricity to charge them with. Umm, there’ll be no electricity at all either.

      If they seriously think this, then these people are bigger fools than their own writings make them out to be.

      No cars, no buses, no trucks, no light rail, no trams, no trains no aircraft, no ships, no transport whatsoever.

      This will NEVER happen, NEVER.

      The end of fossil fuels.

      Just who are they kidding.

      Tony.

      230

      • #
        tom0mason

        Tony,

        The main thing that is required from this meeting is that the UN, through the UN-IPCC, gets direct funding through the taxation of nations.
        All the UN elites knows that once this precedent is set through an agreement, new taxations can be enacted ensuring that a ‘New World Order’ can be achieved.
        Direct taxation by the UN on all nations is the neccessary step on this road.

        190

      • #
        ossqss

        Don’t forget Tony, No Internet either!

        Oh, the good old Medieval days once again ;-)

        100

      • #
        Dave in the states

        Oh there will be cars, and luxuries, for the elites of the elites. The rest of us though…

        150

        • #
          clive

          There is a flaw in their thinking.If you become “Fossil Free”and we don’t have coal for “Generating Electricity”that means no more “Transport”or”Oil Refineries”because “Wind and or Solar “cannot generate enough power to “Make These”
          Shows how “Stupid” they really are.

          20

      • #
        David Maddison

        The Left are quite keen on promoting bicycles, hence our roads being clogged up and made dangerous with “bicycle lanes”. A typical Left wing engineering concept – if you look at where these lanes are generally placed (when they don’t wipe out curbside parking altogether) you will see they are placed in the safety zone originally allocated as space for drivers to open their doors without being hit by passing traffic.

        100

  • #
    diogenese2

    It is worth mentioning the good news that the day after this emergence meeting the world leaders will agree to scrap Agenda 21. the bad news is that it will be replaced by Agenda 91.

    https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld

    This document is a long haul with its 17 GOALS embracing 169 TARGETS. These are laid out in section 59 of the document. The world will pledge, within 15 years to end poverty (Goal 1), hunger (goal 2) and disease (goal 3), in short bring the third world life up to the standards enjoyed by the western world – all without the use of fossil fuels (goal 13 – unlucky for some) upon which the maintenance of this standard of living is totally dependent. Mind you ending fossil fuel use will enable Goal 3.6 “by 2020, halve the number of global deaths and injuries from road traffic accidents”.
    Tony will love Goal 7 : “ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all”. Goal 13, on climate change endorses the decisions of UNCFCC but also (G13a) re-affirms the $100b p.a. danegeld upon annexe 1 nations.
    Such visions of the perfect society are not new. In 1515 Sir Thomas More’s version enriched the English language with its title “Utopia”. In passing, one stipulation was that each family group would have 2 slaves! I suppose idealism has its plus points but one mustn’t lose ones head, as Thomas More did in 1535.
    Somehow I am thinking the incompatibility of this agenda with the Global warming narrative is going emerge at the Paris summit and will become visible to all. Do not despair that any form of world government might emerge from this.
    Article 18 “We re-affirm that every state has, and shall freely exercise, full permanent sovereignty over all of its wealth, natural resources and economic activity”.
    Certainly, as Jo has mentioned, China and India are firm in this. This has lead to India dumping on Greenpeace, figuratively speaking, not in reference to Goal 6.2 (look it up).
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-33980904

    Mind you Global Governance does raise its head in Goals 16 & 17 under the euphemism “global partnership for sustainable development.
    I had to laugh, though, at the gargantuan scale of their ambition;
    Goal 16.5 “substantially reduce corruption and bribery in all their forms”

    150

  • #
    Unmentionable

    The way global finances and economics are headed, by November this Paris chin-wag may be overtaken by events created by an actual global crisis, which produces some unexpected and rather unwanted emissions reduction. Meanwhile it appears BOM are about to go big with extreme El Niño precasts to add to the sense of faux-woe. I feel for all those pithy speeches that could go unread, on all those sad teleprompters, if a genuine global economic panic did emerge before Obama can finish his legacy-building programs.
    ___

    80

  • #
    tom0mason

    Jo, I believe the question asked back in November 3rd, 2014 will be answered with this meeting.

    [The UN through the UN-IPCC,] they only want 0.06% of GDP (for now).

    The IPCC says that the cost of taking action to keep the rise in temperature under 2 degrees C over the next 76 years will cost about 0.06% of GDP every year. Over the same period, world GDP is expected to grow at least 300%. – BBC

    The religious leader has returned from the mount, for he hath heard the word of the God:

    “BAN KI-MOON: Science has spoken.” – ABC

    Who knew the name of God was “science”?

    What do we call the people who get nearly every prediction wrong?

    Prediction or projection they are still demanding money for getting it wrong, by all accounts this criminal chicanery is
    Flimflam

    Ruse

    Artifice

    Underhanded

    Double-dealing

    !

    190

  • #
    Scott M

    This is about the real money, power and control, the shrimp the size of chicken legs, open bars and 5star hotel rooms are for the 40,000+ on the gravy train coming to Paris in Nov.

    70

  • #
    Mikky

    The Great Global Climate Agreement will surely be defeated by the Great Global Energy Fact, that with current technology and wealth the only way to meet increasing energy demand involves burning fossil fuels at ever increasing rates.

    Those who insist on placing atmospheric CO2 first should have to explain who is going to have to starve/freeze/die to meet their objectives, and to have to prove with certainty the link between CO2 and climate, and that the effect on the climate is detrimental.

    Those opposed to the UN’s approach should organise an alternative vision, in which low cost (i.e. mainly fossil fuel) energy is provided to developing countries, plus funding for RESEARCH into alternative energy sources.

    70

    • #
      tom0mason

      What happens with the climate is immaterial!

      This is Big Politics and up for grabs is allowing the UN levy taxes on nations. An agreement at this meeting sets a precedent in UN funding and power.
      All the UN elites knows that once this precedent is set through an agreement, new taxations can be enacted ensuring that the dream of a ‘New World Order’ can be achieved.

      Direct taxation by the UN on all nations is the neccessary step on this road.

      110

      • #
        Mikky

        I agree, many will be rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of a World Govt, but just pointing that out is unlikely to defeat it, it needs much more than that.

        90

  • #

    I know it looks terrible now, but Green Blob will burst.

    It’ll be like the last years of the Ceausescus in Romania. There’ll be big noise coming from the top and a public which has long ceased to listen. Already, the most productive country in Europe has turned back to coal by exploiting a rigged (low) carbon price. Modi actually seems to have a pair, and the Chinese consider the whole carbon thing as a word game and opportunity for ingenious fakery (and good luck to ‘em for faking). Japan and Korea won’t play. How can they?

    Rather than see this meeting as a threat I see it as desperate. Right now it looks dire for skeps because Green Blob has captured all the pivot points of society: media, academia, admin, politics etc. But their numbers aren’t that great and the fervour isn’t there like its was around 2007. Very few of the people who paid a fortune to Al Gore to become his “climate ambassadors” are willing to admit they did it. It’s a bit like the bloke who bought Poseidon for $280. Nobody stays that stupid for that long. In the end the numbers have to stop adding up. The odd bad NH winter since 2008 isn’t helping the Blob. Actual climate change is its enemy.

    If it seems like I’m being passive and fatalistic, I’m not. I think we should act as the ultimate force: free, non-tribal individuals. When tempted to hold back because of PC or group feeling, we need to open our gobs and give Big Green a serve every chance we get. Which is what Jo does and why I like this site. Unlike Al Gore, we work for free and don’t need a herd around us before we open our yaps. I won’t wait for you, don’t you wait for me.

    So, be free, be individual…and open that gob and make sure all your friends, family and neighbours know you’re a loud, proud skep. No need to nag, just let ‘em know so there’s no mistake.

    200

    • #
      tom0mason

      This is the required step to World Governance by the UN, a step by which the UN get the power to levy tax on nations.

      That is the big deal this meeting is to wrangle about, climate is the side-show to the ‘New World Order’ funding method.

      50

      • #
        tom0mason

        At the risk of being accused of diverting folk from this fine blog, for which I apologies, but I note that Canadian journalist Donna Laframboise has hit the nail on the head with her article –

        3 Things Scientists Need to Know About the IPCC
        1. This is a political entity.
        2. Scientists are not in charge.
        3. The IPCC is a template that gets duplicated elsewhere. So even if your scientific specialty has nothing to do with climate you may, at some point, be invited to participate in an organization of this kind.

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

        She goes on to correctly argue that IPCC is not a scientific body but a political one. And explains in detail how the UN elitists are hoodwinking the global public saying in her final paragraphs –

        Ladies and gentlemen: We live in a world in which people are suspicious of politicians, but still respect scientists. Politicians are therefore eager to borrow the prestige of science, to camouflage their own agenda with a veneer of scientific authority.

        Finishing with –

        Dear Scientist,
        At some point in your career, the UN may try to use you to further its goals. Be careful out there.

        150

  • #
    Ruairi

    Ban Ki-moon will make an address,
    To world leaders he hopes to impress,
    Stern words from the master,
    Not on climate disaster,
    But on Paris,’another fine mess’.

    200

  • #
    ScotsmaninUtah

    The UN – It’s a family affair

    The head of the UN, Ban Ki-moon is normally an unemotional almost stone like figure, but he became agitated during an interview, when asked about criticism of promotions within the UN of Siddarth Chatterjee, his son-in-law, a former major in the Indian special forces.

    Ban Ki-moon has a degree in “International Relations” … “Relations ?”, as in members of his family :o

    160

  • #
    tom0mason

    As an aside on NGOs an Global Governance I came across this dry as tinder piece of legal writing —
    Linking NGO Accountability and the Legitimacy of Global Governance
    From Brooklyn Journal of International Law, Vol. 36, pp. 1011-1073, 2011
    Brooklyn Law School, Legal Studies Paper No. 240.
    Or just skip to the conclusion (and note: NSR = non-State regulators) where it says

    CONCLUSION
    As the participation of civil society and NGOs in international affairs has increased in recent years, much of the ensuing debate has focused on questioning why these NGOs should be allowed special influence. The concerns over NGO participation also raise a separate question of the appropriate criteria needed for NGO participation in global governance.
    This question is best answered with a view to NGO accountability as core to global regulators’ legitimacy strategies and as complementary to domestic regulation of NGOs as nonprofits. Some global regulators have already made significant steps in this direction; these efforts can be further improved by keying accountability enforcement regimes to the legitimacy enhancement goals of a particular NSR and by focusing on the complementary role that NSR enforcement can play in domestic regulation of NGOs. Global regulators that currently rely on NGO participation to prop up their own legitimacy but have not yet adopted these or other measures to track and ensure the accountability of the NGOs on which they rely, should act swiftly to remedy this considerable oversight.

    Two things strike me –
    1. The assumed knowledge, skill, and power these NGOs are supposed to have when telling Nation states what should be done. The NGO bureaucratic report systems trump any amount of local skill and knowledge.
    2. The implicit assumption that Global Governance is happening, and will ultimately overtake National Governance in defining how to run the world, or any part of it.

    110

    • #
      Bill

      You can see it in action for yourself with the International Red Cross, Amnesty International, and Doctors without Borders (MSF). All of whom go out of their way to tell everyone else how to live and what to do, regardless of the “ground truth” of the situation.

      80

    • #
      gai

      More about NGOs

      Several years ago I looked into NGOs because of the WTO/Food/Animal ID issue. Here is some relevant stuff from my notes. (The links may no longer work)

      BACKGROUND:

      From a history blog:

      Ignoring Elites, Historians Are Missing a Major Factor in Politics and History
      “… Over the last quarter-century, historians have by and large ceased writing about the role of ruling elites in the country’s evolution. Or if they have taken up the subject, they have done so to argue against its salience for grasping the essentials of American political history. Yet there is something peculiar about this recent intellectual aversion, even if we accept as true the beliefs that democracy, social mobility, and economic dynamism have long inhibited the congealing of a ruling stratum. This aversion has coincided, after all, with one of the largest and fastest-growing disparities in the division of income and wealth in American history….Neglecting the powerful had not been characteristic of historical work before World War II. ” http://hnn.us/roundup/archives/11/2005/3/#11068

      Remember the Students for a Democratic Society on campus when you were in college?

      The ‘Innocents’ Clubs’
      “…During the 1920′s and most of the 1930′s Münzenberg played a leading role in the Comintern, Lenin’s front for world-wide co-ordination of the left under Russian control. Under Münzenberg’s direction, hundreds of groups, committees and publications cynically used and manipulated the devout radicals of the West….Most of this army of workers in what Münzenberg called ‘Innocents’ Clubs’ had no idea they were working for Stalin. They were led to believe that they were advancing the cause of a sort of socialist humanism. The descendents of the ‘Innocents’ Clubs’ are still hard at work in our universities and colleges. Every year a new cohort of impressionable students join groups like the Anti-Nazi League believing them to be benign opponents of oppression…” (WWWDOT)heretical.com/miscella/munzen.html

      THE ORIGINS OF NGOs
      Remember Maurice Strong, Chair of the First Earth Summit in 1972 that started CAGW? The guy who said “…current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class…are not sustainable. A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally damaging consumption patterns….” in his opening remarks at Earth Summit II in 1992.

      In brief Maurice Strong worked in Saudi Arabia for a Rockefeller company, Caltex, in 1953. He left Caltex in 1954 to worked at high levels in banking and oil. By 1971, he served as a trustee for the Rockefeller Foundation, and in 1972 was Secretary-General of the U.N. Conference on the Human Environment. He was Co-founder of the WWF and Senior Advisor to the World Bank and the UN.

      Strong’s early work with YMCA international “…may have been the genesis of Strong’s realization that NGOs (non-government organizations) provide an excellent way to use NGOs to couple the money from philanthropists and business with the objectives of government.” SOURCE

      Looking at this mess I also found this interesting bit from the people at Radio for Peace at the Peace University.

      …”The university’s administrator, Canadian Maurice Strong, came in on a wave of influence based on the promise of Ted Turner’s foundation to give a billion dollars to the UN. His connections to the Turner foundation, the World Bank, and to those environmental groups you hear criticized for allowing domination by big business, are just the tip of the iceberg.

      Anyone searching “Maurice Strong” on the web encounters a very interesting array of entries. (To quote Lewis Carroll, the story becomes “Curious and curiouser”) If we can believe even 10% of the story of his ascent to power and influence, an astonishing tale of subterfuge emerges, consistent with his attack on RFPI. Beyond the fig leaf of NGO’s that he uses for cover, Strong’s real alliances are with the enemies of the UN, which they are busily “reforming”….
      (WWWDOT)w4uvh.net/dxldtd3g.html

      OUCH! they sure don’t like Strong do they?

      30

  • #
    ScotsmaninUtah

    ” The UN – It’s an extended family affair ….

    Nick Haysom, a South African who is Ban’s director of political affairs has dismissed objections that the UN is being run by a South Korean clique, with Ban placing Koreans in several key posts, including Kim Won-soo as his deputy chef du cabinet.

    Ban has also appointed his onetime boss, Han Seung-soo, a former South Korean foreign minister and U.N. General Assembly president, to a senior panel on “climate change”.
    Han Seung-soo has a degree in “something” and a Masters in “something else” and a PhD in Economics….

    South Korean membership has risen rapidly during Ban’s brief tenure, to 66 staff members.

    130

  • #
    jorgekafkazar

    Secret covenants secretly arrived at–an idea whose time has come around again. What can possibly go wrong?

    70

  • #
    Svend Ferdinandsen

    Our new government i Denmark will stop further implementations, so that we save 37% instead of 40% CO2.
    All the blame is at the signal value this small cutback means, no one talks about what it means for the climate. It’s all just pretending.

    90

  • #
    ScotsmaninUtah

    “COP 21 with a back drop of 5 Trillion in cuts “

    Jo is right about America being at the “liberal” end of its swing at present, and Judging by the MSM silence , deals on climate are already in progress or have been completed.
    As for Paris Obama is entitled as President to make any deals he likes,
    However … Congress has control of the money and the Republicans control “both” the House and the Senate.

    where does this leave Paris COP21 … well, Obama can make promises :o

    How does Australia fare in all this …

    If Australia signs up to more strict CO2 controls and targets, whilst China and India continue
    with their plans for coal …
    It’s going to look very one sided in the Pacific

    and not forgetting “The Sequester” that wasn’t meant to happen , actually it did …. the American MSM didn’t advertise it much .. but America has been operating under the mandatory cuts for some time …
    Obama miscalculated in thinking that the Republicans would hold off on cuts to defense
    in the same way that Democrats would hold onto domestic programs.
    In addition the GOP wants 5 Trillion in cuts… :o
    It is unclear how Obama can be make all these claims of support for Climate Change …
    his mind is writing checks his body can’t cash

    100

    • #
      Spetzer86

      You’re forgetting this recent Iran deal. O might be able to make something happen all by his lonesome, especially if the Republicans hand it to him on a platter. He seems to be able to play fast and loose with the checkbook when the mood strikes, so I’m guessing there’s dollars he can free up when the time comes.

      We’re just trying to hold on until Jan2017.

      90

  • #
    michael hart

    Negotiating a world without carbon-based energy is currently like trying to negotiate a world without money. It won’t work because it cannot work. I still think they must know this, so what is the real purpose of the negotiations?

    Sadly, it is still probably just “Let’s just keep the show on the road so we can keep on doing what we are currently doing.”

    In the poor parts of the world that will, quite sensibly, mean carrying on with more fossil fuels. In the wealthier parts of the world it will mean “We get to carry on screwing individuals and corporations in the name of global warming and it could be a generation before the voters realise just how monumentally stupid it was.”

    That strikes me as the most likely ‘agreement’ for Paris.
    AKA, “We’ll continue as we do, and let you continue as you do.” And all bureaucrats fly home happy. And so do the NGO’s, because they are never happier than when complaining about the world not complying with their every whim.

    90

  • #
    TdeF

    This ‘emergency’ meeting? What emergency? The only one which is likely is the total failure of Paris and this must be an attempt to shore up support from the top. When Australia’s PM has called climate science crap, they have a problem. A huge problem with the UK and Canada too. Obama is the lamest of ducks and India has said no and China has promised sincerely to do nothing at all.

    That must be the emergency, imminent failure. Nothing else would bring such desperation on the back of a falling growth in the Chinese economy, an effect which would be bigger than the GFC. After all, China is the major source of windmills, neodymium and solar panels and CO2. China needs the UN to keep pushing Global Warming. It would be ironic if the West had to keep buying Chinese anti Global Warming products to prevent a collapse of the Chinese CO2 producing economy. What irony!

    160

    • #
      diogenese2

      TdeF : a beautiful irony indeed but unfortunately Chinese Wind and Solar exports are but a tiny proportion of their total exports, their internal market being the bigger demand (indeed of interest to outside suppliers). However they have drastically cut their FITs on wind and solar as of 1/1/2016, the cost being 3* that of coal powered generation, so the idea of China wishing to encourage the west in its renewable madness is perfectly sound. I think the “emergency” is that the Paris Agenda is becoming blatantly incoherent and an agreed injection of bland obfuscation is needed.
      I think everybody will agree to act subject to (impossible) conditions and a planet saving deal will be announced.
      Then nothing will happen as everybody backs away from what they (appeared) to have agreed – but the world will not notice.

      100

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      “When Australia’s PM has called climate science crap”???

      From memory his comment was more specific, i.e. smaller in cover, than that. And it was a long time ago.

      I wish he would say it again.

      130

  • #
    JustAnotherPerson

    I apologize, for this comment is off topic, but one of the things that has been nagging me was that the troposphere was supposed to warm faster than the surface temps, and that this would be a distinct greenhouse signature. Well, while doing some research on a different topic, I came across this paper.

    30

    • #
      JustAnotherPerson

      Oops, I didn’t mean to post a duplicate. I ask that the readers here forgive the irritation I no doubt caused them.

      30

  • #
    JustAnotherPerson

    I apologize, for this comment is off topic, but one of the things that has been nagging me was that the troposphere was supposed to warm faster than the surface temps, and that this would be a distinct greenhouse signature. Well, while doing some research on a different topic, I came across this peer-reviewed paper. I will let it speak for itself: (from the paper’s abstract)

    Recent model simulations of the effects of increasing greenhouse gases combined with other anthropogenic effects predicted larger rates of warming in the mid and upper troposphere than near the Earth¹s surface. In multiple model comparisons we find that accelerated upper-level warming is simulated in all models for the greenhouse-gas/direct-aerosol forcing representative of 1979-2000. However, in a test of model predictive skill, a comparison with observations shows no warming of the free troposphere over this period. We assessed the likelihood that such a disparity between model projection and observations could be generated by forcing uncertainties or chance model fluctuations, by comparing all possible 22 yr temperature trends in a series of climate simulations. We find that it is extremely unlikely for near-surface air temperatures (surface temperatures) to increase at the magnitude observed since 1979 without a larger warming in the mid-troposphere. Warming of the surface relative to the mid-troposphere was also more likely in control simulations than under anthropogenic forcing.

    Now, you might ask, “Well, what have we observed (in terms of warming of the mid and upper troposphere in relation to the surface.)” And the answer is quite surprising. According to UAH 6.0 data, since January of 2004, (when this article appeared) the mid-troposphere has warmed 0.070 of a degree Celsius, the tropopause has warmed 0.201 of a degree Celsius, while the surface (using HadCRUt4, the data set that shows the least warming) has warmed 0.189 of a degree Celsius. Averaging the mid-troposphere and tropopause data, we get 0.1355 of a degree Celsius of warming, (which we round to 0.14 of a degree) while the HadCRUt4 data gives us, of course, 0.189 of a degree of warming, a discrepancy of 0.049 of a degree Celsius, (not counting the other data sets which show more warming) the complete opposite of what was predicted and what was “extremely unlikely” to happen. As the paper said,

    We find that it is extremely unlikely for near-surface air temperatures (surface temperatures) to increase at the magnitude observed since 1979 without a larger warming in the mid-troposphere.

    Yet what did we get? 0.119 of a degree Celsius less warming in the mid-troposphere than on the surface. I wonder what that means for the supposed “greenhouse signature” in the atmosphere.

    60

    • #
      AndyG55

      “We find that it is extremely unlikely for near-surface air temperatures ‘

      Ahhh, but did they put the maleficence of Gavin et al at NOAA/GISS into the model ? !!!

      You have to take ALL influences into account, not leave out the major ones.

      20

      • #
        AndyG55

        for example..

        No matter what happens to the real temperatures, we KNOW that 2015 will be the “hottest heffer” in the GISS temperature fabrication…

        And we already KNOW that 2016 will be even hotter.

        30

  • #
    pattoh

    I guess the writing is on the wall for the UN dream of Global Hegemony through controlling international currency ( NWO ) via Carbon Credit Trading.

    Threadneedle St. & Wall St. will have to come out of hiding & force a Keynsian BANCOR on the world to save the “system of economic trade”. [ read their continuing ultimate rule]

    We have no sovereignty or rights – we are all debt slaves.

    60

  • #
    Neville

    More proof that NOAA is fiddling the temp data to suit their and Obama’s agenda.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/how_did_our_cool_weather_get_logged_as_some_of_the_hottest_ever/
    Even the news bulletins have admitted we’ve had a colder July and colder winter overall. Why don’t the media call them out on their con tricks?

    162

  • #
    Richard

    Last year when the French foreign minister was visting the US he said “We have 500 days to avoid climate chaos” as he was giving a speech on climate change. It’s a rather cryptic remark and nobody knew what he was talking about. The statement was made on May 13th 2014 and the 500 day count-down would end on the 26th of September 2015, coincidentially, a day before this meeting is set to take place. Good timing.

    70

    • #
      Richard

      I only know this because I remember it in the WattsUpWithThat article comments-section ‘Climate craziness of the week: France surrenders to climate chaos’.

      40

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      Climate chaos! He must be planning to open the window! Step outdoors, perhaps?

      30

  • #
    Neville

    A good post from Jim Steele at WUWT. He asks whether there may be an Arctic iris effect that NATURALLY changes temps over very long periods.
    This could also explain the earlier 20th century warming of the Arctic and more recent warming.
    The earlier 20th century Arctic even warmed at a faster rate than today. So where is the increased co2 impact to be found in our recent warming?
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/01/the-arctic-iris-effect-dansgaard-oeschger-events-and-climate-model-shortcomings-lesson-from-climate-past-part-1/

    61

  • #
    tom0mason

    I have found yet more insight to the UN moves and aspirations at http://climate-l.iisd.org/policy-updates/climate-countdown-what-can-be-expected-in-the-lead-up-to-paris/.
    Starting with …

    The UN negotiations being undertaken by the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP) are expected to culminate at the 21st session of the Conference of the Parties (COP 21) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which will be held in December 2015 in Paris, France, with the adoption of a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force under the UNFCCC.

    And near the end stating –

    The legal nature of the agreement

    The legal nature of the agreement that the ADP is mandated to negotiate is ambiguous, and Parties have made several different proposals in this regard. A few Parties have stated their opposition to a new protocol, while others, such as the EU or Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), are in favor of a legally binding agreement. These divergences are not new, but consensus must be reached on this issue in Paris.

    [my bold]

    So a big push for legal adoption of UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) again …

    70

  • #
    Bulldust

    O/Topic but the ABC has a piece on media bias in The Drum. A former Howard advisor wrote it and it is therefore unbiased. Needless to say The Drumite sdon’t see things teh same way:

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-02/barnes-does-dutton-have-a-point-about-media-bias/6742332

    I pointed out the fact that ABC journos are left-leaning as shown in a survey:

    It was surveyed (and report in The Conversation of all places) that the majority of ABC staffers (in the survey) identified with Labor/Greens. It was vastly disproportionate to the general population. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that this same slant exhibits in the repoting and opinions.

    I am not suggesting that the staff should be representative of the peoples’ voting preferences, simply that they act as professionals and separate their personal opinions from the reporting. Judging by the continual barrage agains the Lib/Nats, this is too difficult for most ABC staff.

    I quote directly from The Conversation article:

    “However, 41.2% of the 34 ABC journalists who declared a voting intention said they would vote for the Greens, followed by 32.4% for Labor and 14.7% for the Coalition.”

    The facts sting don’t they? Here’s betting the ABC mod squad memory hole this contribution. No worries, copied elsewhere as evidence…

    Here’s The Conversation link:

    http://theconversation.com/whose-views-skew-the-news-media-chiefs-ready-to-vote-out-labor-while-reporters-lean-left-13995

    100

    • #
      el gordo

      There is a green mould festering at the ABC and those journalists have no intention of interviewing sceptics on imminent global cooling. Thanx for these numbers Bulldust.

      ‘However, 41.2% of the 34 ABC journalists who declared a voting intention said they would vote for the Greens, followed by 32.4% for Labor and 14.7% for the Coalition.

      ‘In contrast, 46.5% of 86 News Limited journalists who answered this question said they would vote for Labor, 26.7% for the Coalition, and only 19.8% for the Greens.’

      81

    • #

      both good articles IMO but also good examples of appallingly irrelevant comments by posters of all political persuasions. Even a moderate rule to at least somewhat address the points of the main piece would reduce the comments to about 10

      62

  • #
    ROM

    Ok I’ll try to put a better shine on the doom and gloom expressed by some here on the Global power elite’s conspiracy to force all of mankind into some form of the global power elite’s version of an economic, cultural and and political straight jacket.

    Many have tried to do this on a much smaller scale. Sometimes it even seems to have worked with Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Kim Il Un and many, many more down through history.

    The Romans did succeed and kept a loosely bound empire together for some 2000 years. But it was only because under Roman rule, providing of course you were of the elite Roman citizen groups, you had your living standards advanced quite lot.
    Even so there were still innumerable and often large rebellions against Roman rule from those near the bottom of the heap scattered right through Roman history.
    [ I have only read the condensed version of Edward Gibbons six volume Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire ]

    Ghenghis Khan had a go at ruling the world and got close with his immediate descendants creating the largest contiguous empire in the world,

    Ghenghis Khan died in 1227 at about 65 years old. His empire then broke up as his descendants fell to fighting amongst themselves.

    Hitler and the Japanese Imperial Empire when they both appeared to be on the road to global dominance and suzerainty in 1942 came to a rough agreement to divide the world between then on roughly a line down through the middle of the USSR and on into the Indian Ocean at a longitude of approximately 70 E

    The British Empire as the only global Empire that has ever existed where the sun never set on the Empire lasted a century or less. But like the Roman Empire and unlike the Mongol’s empire it left a usually very benign legacy behind as the British voluntarily left their empire as the various nations under its suzerainty became politically sophisticated enough to govern themselves in a by then rapidly changing and interlinking world.

    Forcing one nation and / or one culture to operate under a particular political, economic and most importantly a specific cultural system different to the markedly native cultural system has proven to be possible for limited periods of time.
    In the modern context that time rarely exceeds two or three generations before reverting back to something approximating the original cultural system.
    Eastern Europe and the central asian Republics and their escapement from under the Soviet / Russian rule as the soviet empire broke up in 1991 are the example here in modern times.
    I was in the USSR a few months before it broke up. The locals knew that something was going to break and soon but how and what they couldn’t tell.

    When a single ideological and cultural strait jacket is attempted on a mixed and therefore a highly volatile grouping of different cultures, social tribal groupings and nations it never works for very long.

    Trying to impose a political and cultural system onto a mix of cultures and social tribes and nationalities is a bit like trying to herd cats.
    It can’t be done and won’t be done for the foreseeable future , mankind being the ornery creature he is.

    So my argument for what it is worth is that all the political play dancing and the angels on the head of a pin counting that the power elites might like to indulge themselves in will invariably come to nothing more than to impose needless sufferings and a vast displacement of peoples and a destruction of treasure and wealth on a huge scale for many human populations.

    And to what purpose except their own and their followers selfish, unfeeling, narcissistic, sociopathic and hubristic self aggrandisations and dreams of total power over all of mankind.

    I like the Arabic saying here as it illustrates the very real problems any of the power elite have in trying to bring every nation, nationality, tribal groupings and the immense range of Global cultural groupings under the one banner.

    The enemy of my enemy is my friend and thus it will always be!

    90

    • #
      Manfred

      I like what you wrote ROM. Thank you. I think of herding cats at 3AM in the morning when the darkest demons emerge.

      30

  • #
    ScotsmaninUtah

    The Copenhagen fanatics

    Jo is right to call Copenhagen a debacle…

    It was 2009 , one year after the global financial meltdown and everyone was really suffering.

    All the UNFCCC could think of was getting their deal on climate change … and all right in the middle of high unemployment and serious hardship.

    It’s a good thing the Chinese do their own thing, and put a stop to the nonsense :D

    70

    • #
      Manfred

      Now there are a million or more refugees streaming uncontrollably into Europe and the Europeans are beside themselves. The UN is almost perfectly silent. The juxtaposition of a panicked Europe trying to cope with this problem and the obsession of the UN with the upcoming climate fest is too ridiculous for words. Yet the sock puppets at the MSM ignore the obvious in favour of the charade, a charade of misdirection. Want the truth, follow the money. No money in refugees.

      70

  • #

    I’ve mentioned this before (probably often) but it’s worth doing it again.

    What got me started on all this was that original Kyoto Protocol, and I wanted to look at it in the respect of what it might take to actually comply with it, by actually reducing emissions, and what that specifically meant for the electrical power generating sector, the greatest source of those CO2 emissions, at around 40% of them.

    In those days (March of 2008) I was just feeling my way around the Internet, never having done anything like that before, so I used the only reference I could think of as a beginner, and that was the Wikipedia site.

    Dear Leader Kevin07 had just ratified Kyoto at the Bali meeting, COP-13.

    For the first four Months or so, I concentrated on a Series that I expected would probably run to just half a dozen Posts at the site I had just started out at, and after that I would then be tapped out. As it was, that original Kyoto Series expanded out to more than 50 separate, and sometimes long, Posts. From there, the whole thing just ballooned and I’m where I am now, and that actually surprised me, that the more I looked, the more I found, and the more frightening it actually became.

    I tend to rabbit on a lot, but that’s only to tell the whole of it. I’m not a facebook, or Twitter type where you are constricted to keep it small, as that says nothing in the way of correct explanation of it all, so I do what I do at ‘my’ home site and here. There’s not really enough hours in the day to go further afield than these.

    So, originally, I visited the Wiki links for the Kyoto site, and that led me to the UNFCCC site, and don’t confuse that with the UNIPCC.

    That UNFCCC site was where the hairs on the back of my neck prickled up.

    Luckily, Wiki has a way back archive, so here’s the link to that entry for March of 2008, the first time I visited the site. Keep in mind that this is almost two years prior to Copenhagen. Incidentally, that UNFCCC Wiki entry is now almost four times longer as it has been edited on a very very regular basis.

    Where my hair prickled was in relation to the way that the UN had divvied up the Countries, 192 of them, at that time. Most were categorised as Developing, and the main targets were those already Developed Countries, 40 of them, and that was then culled down to a short list of Countries categorised as Annex ll Countries, and there were 23 of them, and Australia was one of those 23.

    Now, what interested me the most was the small bracketed phrase after that heading, where it says this: (my bolding here)

    Annex II countries (developed countries which pay for costs of developing countries)

    I then went looking again as to how this was to be done, and that was by the introduction of an ETS to place a cost on CO2 emissions as well as those other 23 or so gases, all at multipliers of CO2. The money raised was to be forwarded to the UN for distribution in those Developing Countries. The only thing that Developing Countries needed to do was just to report their emissions.

    Even then, as I was only starting out, it was obvious that this was the proverbial Sword of Damocles for the whole thing.

    When it came time to replace Kyoto, like at Copenhagen, there was no way known that any Developing Country was going to be forced to do anything other than just report emissions, and there was no way known any Developing Country was going to allow them to be moved into that other area where they now had to pay, and here, think China, and now India.

    That’s why they are having such difficulty trying to replace Kyoto, and why anything which has now come out of these COP conferences is a watered down feel good statement that is virtually meaningless.

    So, even then, just going on that bracketed statement, it became patently obvious that they were NEVER seeking to actually reduce those emissions, because that would mean that all their money would dry up. No emissions, no reason for an ETS, no income to be distributed.

    This was never about reducing those emissions. It was only ever about the money.

    Kyoto and its intent was the source of its own problems. That’s why it will never be replaced with anything effective. All you’ll get is the appearance that this Paris meeting will achieve something.

    All they want is the money.

    Incidentally, at that link, note the criticism almost at the bottom of the page where they calculated that the Bali conference alone released 100,000 tons of CO2 and how they used the worst GHG for the specially installed aircon units for the conference, and how they leaked gas.

    Tony.
    [Tony, This comment got itself stuck in the moderation pipe - probably because of its size?] Fly.

    201

    • #
      ossqss

      Upon reading the Agenda 21 document (hard to find under that name now), and understanding the relationship to the UNFCCC and other organizations, then seeing the adjustments in meteorological records taking place with a very defined pattern, it became a learning moment.

      Now seeing the POTUS going full bore with falsehoods on climate change, closes the loop. There is no conspiracy theory, just observations painting a picture. How many folks do you know that read those 97% consensus papers, or looked at the actual documented terrestrial temperature record adjustments?

      Here is a small sample for review. How would you interpret this survey, derived from a sample of over 10,000 initial recipients of such, with the questions asked?

      http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

      Yeppers, one example of 97% represented by 75 out of 10,000+, 3,000+, or 77 participants. Your choice!

      80

      • #
        AndyG55

        Question..

        Where do you think Obama is going to after his term is over.

        It wouldn’t surprise me if he already has a very safe line into the UN set up.

        60

        • #
          Manfred

          I think it’s said he’s retiring to play golf in Hawaii. I doubt very much whether he has the stomach to stand alone without his henchmen and ‘science’ adviser. Climate proselytizing is best left to the professionals.

          52

          • #
            AndyG55

            “I think it’s said”

            by whom?

            If its Obama… you KNOW its a LIE !!

            42

            • #
              Mike

              It isn’t a lie, it is conjury. Nothing to do with personalities. A nice shirt and tie worn by someone else. And then someone else. Who finances the theater, set, props, stuntmen, special effects and so forth ?
              Gurdjieff: “Wish or no wish, conjury you must believe because all life is conjury.”

              20

        • #
          jorgekafkazar

          China, where his brother now resides.

          10

    • #
      Mike

      Nah, i disagree.
      Politics everything, right and left, green and Carbon green is owned, ushered, planned by big central bank finance. Governments, Greece for example is controlled by finance. And any other country that does not have its own sovereign bank

      It is a constant source of suspense as to when the penny drops more widely. The emporer is wearing clothes, politics various international organizations like the UN and so on.

      Politics everything is now a commodity in the hands of the biggest power in the world.
      The power to print money, using IOU’s called government bonds. and the awesome power of ‘fractional reserve banking’.

      40

    • #
      gai

      Tony, you may rabbit on, but most of us will read what you say.

      I, for one, am always suspicious of short pronouncements with no supporting evidence. CAGW and especially the politics is complicated and just can not be addressed in a few sentences. This is why CAGW has been so successful. Most people use the seven second rule of advertising to get their information for making decisions. More fools them.

      50

    • #
      Peter C

      The post was not very long!

      Thanks for getting it out Fly!

      20

  • #
    pat

    hilarious piece.
    if these few protesters (the best Greenpeace could assemble? note the pic includes “spectators” taking pics) were at a “climate” protest in Australia, our MSM would have headlines about public outrage over Abbott’s “climate” stance & how it’s gone viral on twitter. love the use of “polite”. the Dem Rep who complains, but only about the “revenues”, provides another laugh:

    31 Aug: Alaska Dispatch: Suzanna Caldwell: Obama greeted by supporters, polite protesters in Anchorage
    PHOTO CAPTION: Spectators and protesters gatherd outside the Denaina Convention Center as President Barack Obama arrives on Monday, August 31, 2015.
    Two groups politely rallied in downtown Anchorage Monday with one goal in mind: getting the president’s attention.
    About 75 people gathered at a protest on the Delaney Park Strip organized by environmental groups to oppose Royal Dutch Shell’s Arctic drilling program.
    Another 30 attended an Alaska Democratic Party rally to welcome the president…
    But along the way, there was polite pushback as they crossed paths with the Greenpeace-organized “Rally to Confront the Glacial Pace of Political Action.”…
    Some of the Democrats even folded into the Shell protest rally. Rep. Andy Josephson was one of the Democrats who stood watching the Shell rally. A supporter of the president, he himself couldn’t reconcile the Obama administration’s decision to allow drilling in the Arctic, he said.
    “It’s hard to be a cheerleader for something the state won’t see any revenues from,” he said…
    Stewart said several other groups attempted to gain permits on the same day, but were unable to organize in time. He said at least one group with a protest permit had canceled.
    That group was the Alaska chapter of Americans for Prosperity, a conservative political action agency.
    State director Jeremy Price said the group canceled its rally after it became clear that it was “too tough to pull off last-minute” with road closures and other restrictions in downtown Anchorage.
    “It was just kind of a cluster,” Price said.
    But counter-protesters were nowhere in sight throughout the day, nor were many attendees from the GLACIER convention — except for members of the press.
    https://www.adn.com/article/20150831/obama-greeted-supporters-polite-protesters-anchorage

    60

  • #
    Rico L

    What is the penalty for failing to meet your chosen emissions reduction target?

    50

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      You can’t fail to meet your chosen emissions reduction target – that is what creative climate accounting is for, plus, of course, whatever back-handers you hand out to those doing the creative climate accounting.

      101

      • #
        Rico L

        Surely Tony Abbot can promise whatever he wants… It is the implementation (accounting) that is important.

        50

  • #
    pat

    Aljazeera gave Greenpeace some unwarranted publicity ahead of the protest flop:

    31 Aug: Aljazeera: Renee Lewis: Obama set to visit Alaska’s Arctic Circle amid charges of hypocrisy
    Environmental advocates say decision to permit Shell to set rig off Alaska has tarnished president’s climate legacy
    “We think it’s deeply hypocritical,” said Travis Nichols, spokesman for Greenpeace. “For a president who’s done so much for the climate, to see him do something that could undo that is a real tragedy.”…
    Obama said Saturday, transitioning away from dirty energy sources was crucial, ***but “our economy still has to rely on oil and gas.”.
    But critics argue that even if all goes according to plan with Shell’s drilling, oil might not start flowing for 20 years…
    “By that point,” Greenpeace’s Nichols said, “everyone agrees we have to have moved on from this fossil fuel economy. It’s the type of thing that will lock us into destruction.”
    Groups opposed to Shell’s Arctic drilling will host a protest in Anchorage on Monday as Obama meets with ministers from around the world for the GLACIER conference, a summit on Arctic issues.
    Speakers at the rally will include Besse Odom with Alaska NAACP, Sweetwater Nannauck of Idle No More and Canadian First Nations activist Ta’Kaiya Blaney, a press release by the groups said. Solidarity rallies will be held in Seattle and Portland— the site of two major protests against Shell’s Arctic drilling plans — throughout the day…
    http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/8/31/obama-to-visit-alaskan-arctic-amid-criticism-over-oil-drilling.html

    watch the Portland video – 50 might be an exaggeration, but at least KGW gave time to a pro-driller:

    VIDEO: 31 Aug: KGW TV: ‘Shell No’ protesters march in downtown Portland
    PORTLAND, Ore. — About 50 protesters, some dressed up in polar bear costumes and holding stuffed animals, marched through the streets of downtown Portland on Monday…
    “The one thing about Obama, we are reminding him, hey this is hypocritical,” said protester Barbara Ellis.
    They say it’s a blight on his normally staunch environmental record of looking for renewable resources like wind or solar…
    Protester Claire Darling doesn’t think what Obama is saying, versus what he is doing, makes sense. “I’m not going to call him a hypocrite publicly, but I will say it’s a very confusing message and it looks inconsistent.”…
    Kimberly Reutov and her disabled son are the third side of this argument. They’re not environmentalists, or necessarily pro-oil. Hers is an argument for jobs in struggling Alaska, where they want drilling. She lives there and just so happened to be visiting Portland and stumbled upon the protest. Her husband works for a drilling contractor in Alaska, and she says it’s the only way they have private medical insurance to cover their disabled boy.
    “We’re not living in a mansion like most people expect or think,” Reutov said. “We’re probably three paychecks away from homelessness if he were to lose his job.”…
    The president will be in Alaska for three days. The White House announced he’ll be shooting an episode of the NBC show “Running Wild with Bear Grylls” while he’s up there, to show the effects of climate change. It’ll air on KGW in the fall.
    http://www.kgw.com/story/news/2015/08/31/shell-no-protesters-march-downtown-portland/71494960/

    40

    • #
      gai

      It is not at all hypocritical. Shell Oil and their hand puppet the World Wild Fund have been behind CAGW from day one. So of course Obama is going to bow to the wishes of this corporation. Why? Because the Russians are staking out the oil reserves in the Arctic and we can not have that.

      40

    • #
      Bill

      Ignore the “idle no more” fools, they are tools of Pam Palmater who is still trying to hijack the AFN organisation and take it over for her own purposes. The overwhelming majority of aboriginal Canadians, including myself, want NOTHING to do with her ambitions.

      20

  • #
    bartender

    Skeptics must work together

    If all skeptics from all over the world can join together and stage a televise ‘ live 24 hour rally ‘ beam all over the world to show defiance against a science that is wrong and immoral would be one of the greatest comebacks since the battle of Waterloo.

    Obviously, in order for the event to be made possible he/she must be of a ‘Bob Geldoff nature’. Do you feel up to it, Jo?

    The whole of the science community will be behind you on this one Jo, if you’d take up the gauntlet.

    60

  • #
    pat

    haven’t found anything on a protest in Seattle, but am wondering why the need for icebreakers if all that ice will have melted before they are built! lol:

    1 Sept: Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Joel Connelly: Obama wants more icebreakers
    President Obama is using this week’s Alaska trip to urge action on what’s been a low U.S. priority, building or acquiring new heavy duty U.S. Coast Guard icebreakers capable of year-round operations in the high Arctic…
    Russia has a big advantage when it comes to breaking the ice. It operates 40 active icebreakers, has six under construction and two planned.
    The U.S. once had a fleet of eight ships. Now, it has one medium icebreaker — the Healy — and a 40-year-old heavy -duty icebreaker the Polar Star.
    The Polar Star is operating a world away in the Antarctic. The Polar Sea, its sister ship, has languished in a Seattle drydock out of commission since 2010…
    A heavy-duty icebreaker takes 10 years to build at a cost of $1 billion. Lockheed Shipbuilding in Seattle, which built both the Polar Sea and Polar Star, is no longer in operation. The Polar Star has a long-term commitment to a scientific project at McMurdo Sound in the Antarctic.
    The call by Obama will, (Senator Maria Cantwell, D-Wash) said, hopefully break the icejam in Congress.
    “There is a need for six icebreakers,” she added…
    ***Of course, the senator sees that fleet continuing to be based in the Puget Sound area. “That’s where the resources are,” Cantwell said.
    http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2015/09/01/obama-speed-acquisition-of-icebreakers-for-the-arctic-russia-already-has-a-fleet-of-them/

    60

  • #
    pat

    I’ve read BBC, NBC, Reuters & some other coverage and the following are the ONLY examples I can find which report the Chinese, Indian & Russian abstentions! MSM remains the problem:

    1 Sept: Russia Today: Saving the Arctic? Kerry’s roadmap not melting hearts in Russia, China & India
    The US-led GLACIER environmental conference in Anchorage ended with a joint declaration calling for more international action to tackle climate change. China, India and Russia abstained from signing the document…
    But Russia (the world’s leading oil and gas producer), China (the world largest producer of goods), and India with its huge emerging economy opted not to sign the document, however ***NONBINDING it might appear.
    For China and India reducing emissions entails huge expenditure and loss of economic effectiveness, and for Russia the upcoming environmental deal brings additional costs to the oil and gas extraction industries…
    http://www.rt.com/news/313975-arctic-conference-climate-roadmap/

    31 Aug: Washington Times: Guy Taylor: Kerry warns of increasing pace of Arctic glacier melt
    China, Russia and India — each of whom rank close to the U.S. as nations producing the highest levels of emissions that scientists say cause global warming — were not signatories to the declaration…
    At the State Department, officials downplayed the notion that key powers with direct access to the Arctic were ignoring the Obama administration’s attempt to draw attention to climate change as focal point for international coordination in the region…
    Pressed on the extent to which U.S. officials are concerned that Moscow is ignoring the Obama administration’s focus on environmental issues, Mr. Toner (State Department deputy spokesman) said only that “it’s incumbent on all of the Arctic nations, if you will, to raise public awareness about the environment in the Arctic.”…
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/31/john-kerry-warns-of-increasing-pace-of-arctic-glac/

    50

  • #
    David Maddison

    I like this: “invincible ignorance”.

    From Wikipedia:

    The invincible ignorance fallacy is a deductive fallacy of circularity where the person in question simply refuses to believe the argument, ignoring any evidence given. It is not so much a fallacious tactic in argument as it is a refusal to argue

    “Invincible ignorance fallacy” on @Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invincible_ignorance_fallacy

    I heard Lord Mockton use it in https://youtu.be/kEYpjgpg3X4 around the 41:50 mark.

    50

  • #
    handjive

    World’s Dumbest Criminals

    Only the dumbest criminals video themselves committing a crime, and post it on the internet:

    Mr Obama said rising sea levels could undermine the effectiveness of US forces, jeopardise its military bases around the world and cost hundreds of billions of dollars. He accused those who deny climate change exists of a “dereliction of duty”.

    There are two reasons why flying dwarfs any other environmental impact a single person can exert. (Said George Monbiot)
    The first is the distance it permits us to cover.
    The second reason is that the climate impact of aeroplanes is not confined to the carbon they produce.
    ~ ~ ~
    Watch the carbon(sic) spewing out of the climate destroying plane!
    President Obama’s Visit to Alaska: Touching Down in Anchorage
    . . .
    As if that isn’t enough environmental damage, Obama then encourages others to destroy the climate:

    “And when you leave this conference center, I hope you look around.
    I hope you have the chance to visit a glacier.

    Or just look out your airplane window as you depart, and take in the God-given majesty of this place.

    For those of you flying to other parts of the world, do it again when you’re flying over your home countries.

    Remind yourself that there will come a time when your grandkids — and mine, if I’m lucky enough to have some — they’ll want to see this.
    They’ll want to experience it, just as we’ve gotten to do in our own lives.
    They deserve to live lives free from fear, and want, and peril.
    And ask yourself, are you doing everything you can to protect it.
    Are we doing everything we can to make their lives safer, and more secure, and more prosperous?”
    . . .
    Surely this is a crime against the climate?

    60

    • #
      AndyG55

      “rising sea levels could undermine the effectiveness of US forces”

      Gees. if the US Navy can’t cope with the real 1.5mm (approx.)per year or even the extravagant 3mm/years of sea level rise concocted by the alarmists…

      …. then they really do have serious problems !!!! :-)

      Hint to Obama…….. boats float!!

      91

    • #
      AndyG55

      “I hope you have the chance to visit a glacier. ”

      If not.. then wait a couple of decades… and the glacier will be visiting you.

      101

  • #
    pat

    1 Sept: Business Green: James Phillips: UN launches new climate finance centre in Thailand
    International organisation opens its fifth hub for promoting financing of clean energy projects in developing countries
    The latest move saw the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) launch a new Regional Collaboration Centre (RCC) to promote the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) carbon offset scheme in Bangkok, Thailand…
    Christina Figueres, executive secretary of the UNFCCC, said schemes like the CDM could play a role in delivering on the new international climate change accord due to be agreed at December’s Paris Climate Summit.
    “A CDM hub in Asia-Pacific comes as nations are set to ink a new universal climate agreement in Paris in December,” she said. “The agreement needs to trigger an ever deeper transition to a low carbon economy and by the second half of the century a climate neutral world – scaled up finance, innovative technologies and creative market mechanisms that benefit people and the planet will be central to these aims.”
    The centre, which becomes fully operational today, will be run in partnership with the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES) and will work with the UN’s other climate finance centres in Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean…
    The UN said over 7,600 CDM projects have been registered across more than 100 countries, mobilising millions of dollars in finance for renewable energy and energy efficiency schemes.
    However, the scheme has faced severe headwinds since 2008 when the collapse in the price of carbon in the EU emissions trading scheme led to a sharp drop in demand for carbon credits through the CDM.
    http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2423817/un-launches-new-climate-finance-centre-in-thailand

    environmental groups know of the CDM abuses, yet they continue to back the entire CAGW scam. read all::

    27 May: Mongabay: Shreya Dasgupta: ‘Green’ hydropower dam fuels charges of gross human rights violations
    It is backed by the World Bank and several European banks, as well as the Guatemalan government. In spite of the alleged abuses, the dam’s owner has been granted approval by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) to earn carbon offset credits for the electricity the dam would generate. The credits could be traded under the European Union’s Emission Trading System. The project, in a nation currently wracked by political upheaval over government corruption, is one of several prompting efforts to reform the CDM…
    The CDM Executive Board reviewed the allegations laid out by the local stakeholder groups. In fact, according to Carbon Market Watch, this was the first time the CDM formally reviewed a project based on allegations that local consultation was inappropriately conducted. However, in a response letter dated 5 June 2014, the Executive Board concluded that the project was “in compliance with the applicable CDM requirements, including the local stakeholder consultation process.”…
    A wider problem with green-stamped projects
    But Santa Rita is not an isolated case of a green-stamped project embroiled in human rights violations. A number of other CDM-approved power-generating projects in Guatemala and other countries have been implicated as well, according to a 2013 compilation of case studies by Carbon Market Watch…
    “To date, the CDM does not have a grievance mechanism, something that we hope will change as part of the CDM reform as part of the upcoming UNFCCC negotiations in Bonn, Germany, starting on 1 June,” Filzmoser added, referring to United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change negotiations…
    http://news.mongabay.com/2015/05/green-hydropower-dam-fuels-charges-of-gross-human-rights-violations/

    40

  • #

    The El Nino has already caused frosts and famines in PNG. When it hits in summer I think this blog will be narrowed down heaps.

    Global Cooling, oh please! Differences in states of the sun affect climate by like 1%, the GHGs in the atmosphere will keep the globe too warm.

    212

    • #
      gai

      CO2 hasn’t kept the earth from heading into the ice box before so why should it now?

      41

    • #
      tom0mason

      Maxine,

      As Christopher M. Moy has shown El Nino is a natural event!

      The variability of El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) during the Holocene epoch, in particular on millennial timescales, is poorly understood. Palaeoclimate studies have documented ENSO variability for selected intervals in the Holocene, but most records are either too short or insufficiently resolved to investigate variability on millennial scales1, 2, 3. Here we present a record of sedimentation in Laguna Pallcacocha, southern Ecuador, which is strongly influenced by ENSO variability, and covers the past 12,000 years continuously. We find that changes on a timescale of 2–8 years, which we attribute to warm ENSO events, become more frequent over the Holocene until about 1,200 years ago, and then decline towards the present. Periods of relatively high and low ENSO activity, alternating at a timescale of about 2,000 years, are superimposed on this long-term trend. We attribute the long-term trend to orbitally induced changes in insolation, and suggest internal ENSO dynamics as a possible cause of the millennial variability. However, the millennial oscillation will need to be confirmed in other ENSO proxy records.

      51

      • #
        Bill

        Don’t you know that, according to Maxine, NOTHING ever happened before the “hockey stick” or St. Gore began preaching doomsday?

        31

        • #
          gai

          I often wonder what would happen if Maxine and her buddies got what they say they are wishing for. I really would love to herd them all into one area and give them exactly what they say they want – to the letter. A world without carbon based fuels, no mining, no farm animals and NO TRADE or outside interference. I really really think we should do so and leave them for a year. California or better yet Vermont since a Bernie Saunders poll at the beginning of the year said the people of the state were all anti-CO2.

          ………….
          “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”
          – H. L. Mencken

          31

  • #
    • #
      Peter C

      Very Good. New Conference.

      Environmental conditions at the Earth’s surface have been continuously suitable for life for more than three billion years. Temperatures, for example, have only varied by few tens of centigrade despite large changes in solar luminosity and atmospheric composition. Since the Archean, the planet has not once been rendered sterile. However, the reasons for this long-term life-friendliness remain contentious. How has Earth’s climate avoided the runaway warming shown on Venus or the runaway cooling of Mars? Has

      Recommend attendance by those who are able.

      40

      • #
        AndyG55

        ” How has Earth’s climate avoided the runaway warming shown on Venus ”

        Venus is almost the exact temperature it should be for its atmospheric pressure and distance from the Sun.

        This no runaway warming on Venus.

        Mars has very little atmosphere.. of course it fluctuates widely between sunny side and dark side, and of course it is unable to retain any atmospheric warmth.

        91

      • #
        David Maddison

        Atmospheric pressure at surface on Mars 0.006 times that of Earth and that on Venus 93 times that of Earth at surface.

        50

  • #
    gai

    Peter C says he is confused about Fascism.

    Third Way Socialism is just Fascism rebranded. It was resurrected and renamed by Anthony Giddens, Director of the Fabian founded London School of Economics. It is pedaled by Tony Blair and Bill Clinton as ‘New’
    because the ‘brand name’ got tarnished. Fascism was fobbed of as ‘right wing’ so the Left could distance themselves from the unplatable truth. We all know how good the Left is at rewriting history.

    Remember George Bernard Shaw a co-founder of the Fabian Society praised Hitler and Mussilini. So not all the history got rewritten.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQvsf2MUKRQ

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0fHMljbvLE

    E. M. Smith (ChiefIO) explains the Fascism/Third Way economic system much better than I can.

    “Evil Socialism” vs “Evil Capitalism”

    60

    • #
      gai

      A bit more history and background:

      For a thousand years the elite (Aristocracy) and the Church ruled. The Money lenders clawed their way to a seat near the top via the fractional reserve banking con. The Rothschilds consolidated that position (and introduced a central bank.)

      And then everything fell apart with the development of a middle class.
      1776 – American Revolution

      1789 until 1799. French Revolution

      1803 – 1815 Napoleonic Wars (involving most of Europe)

      Chartism, a working-class movement for political reform in Britain which existed from 1838 to 1858.

      ENTER STAGE LEFT KARL MARX.

      His history give an clue to who he actually represents.

      His mentor was Baron Ludwig von Westphalen. Westphalen, was the youngest son of Christian Philip, who had been de facto “chief of staff” to Duke Ferdinand of Brunswick during the Seven Years’ War. Through his mother he was the descendant of many Scottish and European noble families…. (WIKI)

      In 1816 Ludwig von Westphalen was transferred to Trier where he met and befriended Heinrich Marx, the father of Karl Marx….

      A well connected Aristocrat just happens to be sent to Trier and ‘befriends’ a Jewish family and trains Karl Marx… Yeah, Right.

      Then there is the Marx family.

      Marx was born into the Jewish business class. His father was a lawyer, for businesses, and he owned vinyards. His maternal grandfather was a textile merchant and banker. His grandmother’s first cousin married Nathan Rothschild, founder of the British branch of the Rothschild banking dynasty. Lion Philips’ brother Benjamin was a “banker and industrialist”. Lion’s son Frederick was a banker.
      http://www.discussionist.com/?com=view_post&forum=1015&pid=61017

      With that background into Marx history and training this passage from The Communist Manifesto makes a bit more sense:

      The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his ‘natural superiors,’ and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, callous ‘cash payment.’ It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervor, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom—Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.

      The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honored and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage laborers.” ― Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto

      20

    • #
      gai

      My intermediate comment got booted to moderation so the logic is a bit out of sequence.

      To continue, why would the Aristocrats be interested in ‘Socialism’ as a way to get the peasants back under the yoke of serfdom? You have to go to the classics to find the link. (And remember some were very well trained in the classics.)

      Ancient Spartan Communism

      According to tradition, Sparta was the handiwork of Lycurgus… — he persuaded the Spartans to agree to a new distribution of lands on a basis of equality, and by other measures he weaned them from the love of silver and gold, and led them to adopt that harsh simplicity of life which the very name of Sparta has come to connote. Plutarch’s description is of interest because, waiving the question of its historical accuracy, it gives a very adequate definition of the ideal communistic state, as ideally imagined by countless later generations. In general, he says,

      he trained his fellow-citizens to have neither the wish nor the ability to live for themselves; but like bees they were to make themselves always integral parts of the whole community, clustering together about their leader, almost beside themselves with enthusiasm and noble ambition, and to belong wholly to their country.

      …Whether or not Lycurgus succeeded in abolishing “all the mass of pride, envy, crime and luxury” which flowed from the previous state of inequality — indeed, whether or not Lycurgus ever existed — Sparta, with her remarkable system of government and institutions, certainly did exist….

      It is difficult to recall any other state in which the individual was so completely subordinated to the general ends of the community — and such subordination is, of course, of the very essence of socialism in its general sense,….. From the day of his birth, when he might be not merely subordinated but suppressed for the good of the state, the young Spartan continued to be disposed of in one way or another until death opened up for him a way of escape. The common education, which began at the age of seven, was wholly designed to make good soldiers, to teach men to suffer uncomplainingly the extremes of heat and of cold, of hunger and of pain, and in each was implanted the conviction that he belonged not to himself, but to the state.

      No wonder the elite/aristocracy love socialism!

      70

  • #
    tom0mason

    Settled Science has always helped mankind to progress.

    30

  • #
    BilB

    “How many people does expensive electricity kill? — Jo”

    Well, 3 to 4 million people a year!….because……it (grid electricity) is too expensive for subsistence rural communities.

    Now the oil companies could have stepped in and resolved that problem 50 years ago, but they didn’t.

    The governments of these countries could have resolved the problem 40 years ago, but they didn’t,.. and they didn’t for the very fact that these countries are actually successful examples of Libertarian ideology (minimum government, minimum taxation, user pays education and health, zero social services, minimum (official) government interference in work practices and construction, strong police and military to protect the interests of the wealthy, etc. Africa is a Libertarian paradise to the extent that I am amazed that you would be attempting to use the plight of such a large body of exploitable labour as being some kind of Green failure.

    What actually do work for rural mudhut dwellers are solar panels for charging cell phones and small batteries (for LED lighting). The cooking problem that you are so concerned about, the part that the fossil fuel pushers could have resolved is being solved with a multitude of alternative initiatives such as http://gebiofuels.com/ , ethanol fuel gel which is about 7 kwhrs per litre, non explosive and absolutely clean burning. Clean affordable cooking, free electricity for lighting, and free electricity for communication for a tiny fraction of the infrastructure of grid electricity. But that is not to say that grid (renewable preferably but other fuels where it is essential) electricity does not have its place in Africa.

    Consider the rural Grid electricity alternative. Apart from the problem of the cost of laying cables great distances to individual customers a cost that generally kills the connection for Australian rural users, then there is the problem of attaching high voltage cables to low profile buildings made from what we would call temporary materials, and the killer…. the occupants are usually bare foot on dirt floors. The death rate from electric shocks would require an Australian royal commission in the first few days.

    You really have not thought this out at all well, Jo.

    03

    • #
      GI

      BilB,

      LED’s? – battery storeage is way too expensive and mudhutdwellers read by firelight.

      Cooking? – dungfires are traditional and plentiful.

      Cellphones? – assuming the person in the next mudhut has a phone.

      Death rate from electric shocks? – you best be doing you sums on the average PV system – you know the amperage bit, the stuff ‘electric shocks’ are made from.

      You know what they do need ‘real’ electricity for – refirgeration.

      20

  • #
    Kim

    The area in Paris where the meeting will be held is not a particularly congenial area. It won’t be the coldest part of the year but it won’t be particularly pleasant, especially given our global cooling.

    10

  • #
    Crispin in Waterloo

    The figure ’4 million’ dying from cooking fire smoke is, if you delve into it, 0-4.3 million, and is surprisingly easy to solve. Use chimneys. Cooking with biomass (wood, brush, charcoal, dung, agricultural wastes) is easily done better. Improved cooking stoves with chimneys reduce the exposure indoors to zero. Alarmists are reduced to hoping that outdoor air will prove to somehow be bad enough to cause illness.

    Truly modern biomass and coal stoves are remarkably clean and efficient. There is no need to spend billions on trying to cook with electricity or gas because it used to be the only ‘clean’ option.

    Bottom line: beware of models of death based on models of disease based on models of exposure based on models of emissions based on decontextualized tests of cooking stoves performed 20 years ago.

    10