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


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper




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


Flashback: IPCC official admits UN climate meetings redistribute wealth in one of the “largest economic conferences since WWII”

Time to revisit the revealing quote from Ottmar Edenhoffer, IPCC leader in November 2010. He candidly said that climate policy was about redistributing wealth and has almost nothing to do with the environment. He also admitted countries who don’t sign up will be better off (so much for all the talk about creating green jobs). To give some sense of the scale of wealth transfer he described the up and coming UNFCCC Cancun meeting as “not a climate conference” but  “one of the largest economic conferences since WWII”.

In 2010, ten thousand people went to Cancun. On November 30th,  50,000 people are expected to attend Paris COP21.

h/t to Egor the one. Image assembled by Cyrus Manz.

UN, climate change, redistributing wealth, quote

h/t to Egor the one. The creator:  Cyrus Manz.

Ottmar Edenhofer is co-chair of the IPCC Working Group III. He did this  interview in German in the lead up to Cancun, 2010 and GWPF translated it.

“Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet – and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 – there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.

De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

Remember how carbon trading is going to make us rich, provide jobs and grow the economy? Edenhoffer, economic advisor to the UN, admits the problem is that countries will be better off if they don’t sign up for the UN climate deals, and that’s why they need “penalties and incentives”.

“But unlike the financial crisis, in climate policy a country benefits if it does not join in.

The financial crisis was an emergency operation – in the face of danger we behave more cooperatively. Such a thing will not happen in climate policy, because it will always remain questionable whether a specific event like a flood is a climate phenomenon. But there is always the risk that individual rationality leads to collective stupidity. Therefore, one cannot solve the climate problem alone, but it has to be linked to other problems. There must be penalties and incentives: global CO 2-tariffs and technology transfer.

Entire interview at GWPF.

In 2013  CFACT used the line about redistributing wealth into a billboard
h/t to Egor the one,  2015/09/07 at 6:40 pm

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.6/10 (85 votes cast)
Flashback: IPCC official admits UN climate meetings redistribute wealth in one of the "largest economic conferences since WWII", 9.6 out of 10 based on 85 ratings

Tiny Url for this post:

108 comments to Flashback: IPCC official admits UN climate meetings redistribute wealth in one of the “largest economic conferences since WWII”

  • #

    O/T: Found a scary media story of the web about funnel web spiders in trees which I felt wasn’t scary enough to urge climate action ;-) so I rejigged the story a little and put in a mention of rising sea levels.

    Early comments on the article itself and on Facebook reveal that although readers at first considered the article could be satire, they later thought it reflected the tone and focus of publicity around other scientific research.

    Indistinguishable from satire.

    There’s a link to the proper news article in the blog article. Of 39 readers so far, nobody’s clicked on that link.


    • #
      David Maddison

      I was one that originally thought it might be satire but then later thought it could be true…


      • #

        I applied the tried and trusted formula of climate alarmism to an insignificant “scientific” article to produce the one at TheConversation. My “training” in journalism was a few hours working with semi-retired journalist formerly of the Sunday Times (in Western Australia) to produce a regular “Newsletter” for commercial use in 1990; so I learnt how to spin a story. Even when it doesn’t involve spiders. ;-)

        The hapless scientist in the original article believed he had discovered a tree-dwelling funnel web spider; when such had been known in the region for a long time by locals and even reported on in documentaries on TV.

        It’s the sort of story that local newspapers use to fill the blank columns between adverts. Thus one could call it a balanced article. /sarc


    • #

      Not all that new!

      Hadronyche versuta (B. Brunet), the Blue Mountains Funnel Web has been around forever. It is found near Jenolan Caves. When working for Flick we used to make very enjoyable trips up to the Jenolan Road and capture several of these magnificent creatures for use on our shopping centre stands – and later to be donated to the Serum Laboratories for serum work. They were exclusively found in fallen logs that had rotted, with the females taking up residence at least 1 metre from each other in web-lined lairs, while the (very nervous) males tended to wander around!

      As this location is at 3,500ft above sea level, it must prove that the sea was up to this hight at one time! (Do I need a sark?)


      • #

        Thanks. You’re the second person to mention Jenolan Caves on that subject to me today.

        Males should know bether than to accept an arachnid’s invitation to a dinner date.


  • #


    You quoted Edenhoffer:

    But there is always the risk that individual rationality leads to collective stupidity. Therefore, one cannot solve the climate problem alone, but it has to be linked to other problems. There must be penalties and incentives: global CO 2-tariffs and technology transfer.

    And made the observation that:

    Edenhoffer, economic advisor to the UN, admits the problem is that countries will be better off if they don’t sign up for the UN climate deals, and that’s why they need “penalties and incentives”.

    So, in other words, “If they don’t comply voluntarily, then we’ll beat them into submission.”

    Hmmm. What does that remind me of?



    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      We need to remember that Edenfofer is not only an Economist, but a German Economist.

      So When he says, “One must say clearly that we redistribute the world’s wealth by climate policy’, he will be using the word, “wealth” in an economic sense, meaning “anything of value”.

      He is not simply talking about money; which to a German economist, represents nothing more that a crude method of facilitating the transfer.

      The question I have, is: Would he consider it easier to improve the lot of people living in sub-saharan Africa, than lower the standard of living of people residing in the Western “Developed Nations”?


      • #

        The question I have, is: Would he consider it easier to improve the lot of people living in sub-saharan Africa, than lower the standard of living of people residing in the Western “Developed Nations”?

        I think that he would consider that immaterial especially when his goal is not to consider the standard of living of people in western developed nations as the benchmark for those people living in sub-saharan Africa nor even as an aspirational goal for them.

        More likely his goal is a significant decrease in the standards of those he considers rich with a (very) modest gain in the conditions of the poorest while the living standards of the technocratic bureaucracy (of which he is a member) is maintained or even raised to free them to manage all this for us.


    • #
      Leonard Lane

      Just, maybe it is time to change the name of the UN to the Peoples Nations United to Collectivize the World’s Wealth through Mass Reductions in Fossil Fuel and World Population.


    • #

      (1) But there is always the risk that individual rationality leads to collective stupidity.
      (2) Therefore, one cannot solve the climate problem alone, but it has to be linked to other problems.

      This juxtaposition of sentences highlights a perfect example of meaningless bureaucratic illogical double speak. Sentence two does not logically follow on from sentence one and the meaning is uncertain, one possibly imparted by implication.

      Does ‘alone’ in sentence (2) imply climate as a ‘single problem’ or does it mean that a single person cannot solve the ‘climate problem’?
      The second clause in sentence (2) suggests that ‘alone’ may refer to a perceived necessity of combining a single climate problem with ‘other problems’….problems for whom… taxes perhaps?….or unnecessary regulations?…or ‘cli-fi’ scenarios and ‘inconvenient truths’…

      The nonsensical implication that individual rationality leads to collective stupidity is utter rubbish. (Just think Skunk Works for example).
      Nevertheless, prophetically one must concede that it applies perfectly in context to Governments and Bureaucracies.

      I think Ottmar Edenhoffer made a Freudian slip, a bureaucratic parapraxis

      They betray themselves at every turn.


  • #

    Despite the obvious perils of a totalitarian global regime this type of open admission seems to fall on deaf ears where most countries media or politics are concerned, has the effects of social engineering become so successful the sheep now accept the magicians lies?


    • #

      The proponents feel that with the connection between CO2 and Global Warming proven in the public arena, every event now absolute proof of the connection, there is no need to even justify carbon taxes. Anyone who dares disagree is still a ‘denier’.

      After 20 years of this nonsense, enough swinging voters think it is real to have real political impact but the UK is changing quickly, so the major proponent of this fantasy is Barack Obama. The question is why?

      What is most obvious is that a factual science issue is so clearly a political one, the surest proof that it is not science at all and never was.


    • #
  • #
    John F. Hultquist

    If one makes a chart of attendees beginning with the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 to the expected 50,000 participants (including 25,000 official delegates) at the Paris Party there will appear a hockey stick. Such exponential growth will cause France to tip into the Atlantic Ocean, slide to the bottom, and a pulse of cold water will be forced to the surface. Earth will cool. All 50,000 activists will succumb to H2O poisoning and Global Warming, like Atlantis will not be heard from again.


    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Such exponential growth will cause France to tip into the Atlantic Ocean …

      And will anybody notice or care?

      Apart from the Brits, that is, who will celebrate it, as the final outcome of the Hundred Years War.


  • #
    Alexander K

    I am amazed that so few people noticed this comment from Endenhofer when it was first published. For me, it was a confession of guilt and a smoking gun rolled into a single comment. Why do intelligent accept blackmail and criminality from the UN without question?


  • #
    • #

      Also, this doozy:

      Video: UN Climate Change Official says “We Should Make Every Effort” to Depopulate the Planet

      In 2013, Figueres had a conversation with Climate One founder Greg Dalton regarding “fertility rates in population,” as a contributor to climate change.

      The comments are made at 4.20.


  • #
    el gordo

    ‘In a new book covering the macroeconomics of global warming Ottmar Edenhofer and his co-authors propose declaring the atmosphere common property of humankind.’

    Potsdam Institute


    I had always assumed the air we breathe is common property and any attempted restriction is surely a crime against humanity.


  • #

    “climate policy was about redistributing wealth”

    The “wealth” which we and our families worked hard for, fought for in creating a better, more stable society where people feel confident to contribute and build.

    All this “wealth” has come at enormous personal cost and discipline and for a long time the UN and other Politicians have been riding high on the back of our work and sacrifice.

    What little personal wealth or savings I put away for the future has been taken in the big crash of 2008 and what many don’t comprehend is that this “crash” was caused by avaricious government acting as willing parties to big interests more important than all the rest of us poor dupes.

    There is no longer any confidence to contribute and build for our future; we are enslaved.

    Get out of the UN ; we no longer owe the world anything; We are being USED!!!



    • #

      No Keith it’s NOT, it’s about a treaty that gives the UN more or less direct access to an income stream, that is some of the proceeds of an ETS as Labor stupidly did.

      By creating this access in a treaty, the measure is almost impossible to repeal even if “we the people” demand it.

      Redistribution it is not, the government MUST NOT agree to any treaty where payments are in any way out of sovereign control.

      Note Keith, that if the UN were in any way interested in helping the poor then they would build and run power stations and distribution networks accross the third world. This would pretty much end poverty, quarter disease, increase life expectancy by at least 1/4 and provide a plethora of income opportunities across the third world. Not only that, it would cost less than half of the bounty they expect to get from AGW.


  • #

    True warmists must feel so dismayed,
    To hear that a U.N. charade,
    Would claim to share wealth,
    Through climate-change stealth,
    And that warming was never man-made.


  • #

    The stakes are higher than ever

    There is an enormous amount at stake; another failure wouldn’t simply be a case of going back to the drawing board.

    If it (Paris 2015) delivers another underwhelming result, questions will be asked about whether the UN negotiating progress can continue in the same way it
    has for the past 21 years.
    ~ ~ ~
    > 21 years of meetings to come to an end?

    Say it aint so!

    “Hedegaard says Paris doesn’t have to deliver some final, ultimate treaty, but … ”
    . . .
    Phew. That was close.

    See you next year.

    (theconversation, Sept. 9, 2015)


  • #

    It was ever thus. Look at the statements by Strong from the 1970s, one of the key people behind the establishment of the UNFCC. He said then that this was the purpose.


  • #

    Ottmar Edenhofer has revealed the truth clearly to all who will listen.
    The UN wants to redistribute the world’s wealth by use of climate policy. This new international climate policy is entirely an environmental-concern free policy. It has almost nothing to do with any real environmental policy anymore. There is no longer any concern for problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole. The whole policy is nominally based on a bogus Global Warming/Climate Change charade.


    • #
      • #

        James Lovelock;

        [ bio; 200 papers. Filed for 50 inventions; creator of the Gaia hypothesis which he subsequently backed away from. NASA space probe instrument inventor and many "and etc's" ]

        Outline of an Interview with Lovelock in the far left Guardian, March 2010

        James Lovelock on the value of sceptics and why Copenhagen was doomed

        Lovelock’s reaction to first reading about the stolen CRU emails [he later clarified that he hadn't read the originals, saying: "Oddly, I felt reluctant to pry":

        I was utterly disgusted. My second thought was that it was inevitable. It was bound to happen. Science, not so very long ago, pre-1960s, was largely vocational. Back when I was young, I didn't want to do anything else other than be a scientist. They're not like that nowadays. They don't give a damn. They go to these massive, mass-produced universities and churn them out. They say: "Science is a good career. You can get a job for life doing government work." That's no way to do science.

        [ edit ; the following my bolding is in reference to climate science and the corruption of science exposed in the CRU e-mails ]

        I have seen this happen before, of course. We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.

        Fudging the data in any way whatsoever is quite literally a sin against the holy ghost of science. I’m not religious, but I put it that way because I feel so strongly. It’s the one thing you do not ever do. You’ve got to have standards.

        You can make mistakes; they’re helpful. In the old days, it was perfectly OK to make a mistake and say so. You often learned from it. Nowadays if you’re dependent on a grant – and 99% of them are – you can’t make mistakes as you won’t get another one if you do. It’s an awful moral climate and it was all set up for the best of reasons. I think it was felt there was far too much inequality in science and there was an enormous redress. Looking around the country [at the wider society] this was good on the whole, but in some special professions you want the best, the elite. Elitism is important in science. It is vital.


  • #
    Robert O

    It goes without saying that the UN’s policy on “climate change”is about everything else than global temperature. The relevant point is are our political leaders astute enough to see through this facade; that is the real question and it appears that not many are.


  • #


    You make the fallacious connection that only burning fossil fuels brings wealth, at one level and that it brings wealth to everyone at another. Your entire argumentative platform is based on the blocking out of the reality that there are consequences to combusting fossil fuels and releasing huge amounts of long sequestered carbon into our present day atmosphere, while also vehemently arguing, despite all evidence to the contrary, that there are not solidly commercial economy enabling alternatives. That is a deliberate act of denying reality.

    One of the very recent consequences that could have implications that obliterates all of the benefits of the total use of fossil fuels is that the melting of the permafrosts are unlocking biological material that has been locked out of genetic circulation for millenia, and that means that present day life can potentially be severely impacted. This material is in the form of viruses. A current study underway is reactivating one prehistoric virus to examine its features. 70% of viral infections that affect humans come from animals, and there is the very real possibility that a mass extermination virus will re-enter circulation into our modern environment with devastating consequences. Yes this would be a perfectly natural process impacting a completely unnatural realm, human civilisation.

    That is just one of so many consequences of excessive fossil fuel (highly compressed stored solar energy) consumption, in preference to using solar energy in real time.


    • #

      “…despite all evidence “of “solidly commercial economy enabling alternatives”

      What evidence?


    • #


      have you NEVER wondered why your side of this debate has NEVER actually DEMANDED the shutting off of all the sources of those CO2 emissions. They tell us that there are absolutely the most direst of consequences in typical the sky is falling manner.

      You only have to read the UNFCCC and associated work they have. There are literally thousands of pages on how the money is to be raised, from whom, and going to whoever. (minus the UN and its hangers on cuts)

      It’s not hidden. It’s all written there in plain English. It also states that those now almost 200 Countries need do nothing really, and the only target is that tiny number of Countries who have to pay for everything. They also don’t care that those other Countries are ramping up their emissions, and in fact, they don’t deny that they will actually need to do that. Don’t you ever wonder why they would say all these things like that.

      Thousands and thousands of pages.

      All instead of just one simple statement.

      Turn off all sources of emissions.

      Surely you must wonder about that.

      Don’t come here trying to justify what is basically your argument from ignorance. Chase it down and read about it. I did. Then, YOU go out and get active and get your people to shut down those emissions if the problem is supposedly as bad as they make out. It’s patently obvious all they ARE doing is raising money from it.



    • #
      Mark D.

      Bilbo, the “wealth” caused by carbon mining is solely from demand. People like to be warm and not die from cold. Your “economic” solutions are proven to not be cost effective. Your solutions WILL LEAVE PEOPLE TO DIE FROM COLD.

      Ask me why you get no respect.

      You live in an alternate reality that by the way makes a personal gain for yourself. A personal gain that causes someone else to suffer. Ask me again why you think you deserve respect?


      • #

        Mark D @ # 14.3


        You live in an alternate reality that by the way makes a personal gain for yourself.
        A personal gain that causes someone else to suffer.
        Ask me again why you think you deserve respect?

        Arguably the shortest and most damning summings of the extraordinarily selfish personal attitudes of the cultists of the global warming / climate change faith I have seen for many a long year.

        “Ask us again why you and your ilk don’t get any respect, BilB”


    • #


      So rational, especially all that crud about fatal ‘viruses’, but the icing on the cake is when you write –

      “That is just one of so many consequences of excessive fossil fuel (highly compressed stored solar energy) consumption, in preference to using solar energy in real time.

      Yep, solar energy in real time! Sun-up to sundown and never at night nor when heavily overcast. Good idea!


    • #

      Woo hoo ……………………………………………………………….*gasp***********

      OMG, that’s so funny.

      70% of viral infections that affect humans come from animals, and there is the very real possibility that a mass extermination virus will re-enter circulation into our modern environment with devastating consequences.

      Pigs are animals, ducks are animals and people are animals. Lots of people live with pigs and ducks. This is the environment which breeds and ‘industrially’ modifies influenza and corona viruses. It happens far faster today than even a millemium ago. So my advice Bilb, is don’t live with pigs and ducks together.

      In the meantime, support your assertions . Without support it is just hearsay.


  • #

    I will give just two of the most important quotes made in recent past history, quotes which were never fulfilled and ultimately failed utterly and entirely and leave you to work out the importance ranking of those quotes and by whom and in what circumstances they were made.
    And then compare the circumstances surrounding those utterly failed quotes with chances of a similar arrogant quote from the IPCC’s Dr Ottmar Edenhoffer ever succeeding.

    [ He ] declared the accord with the Germans signalled “peace for our time”, after he had read it to a jubilant crowd gathered at Heston airport in west London.

    Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you.”

    Now compare the import of those above quotes with the quote from Dr Ottmar Edenhoffer of the UN-IPCC , a body that exists purely at the pleasure of the World’s major economic and military powers, those advanced and fastest developing nations on Earth that in sum probably number only 30 or so nations whose national interests far exceed the power and influence of a body, the IPCC, that was the creation of the worlds economic powers.

    And a body, a bureaucratic entity now overloaded with it’s own importance and hubris that can and eventually will be disposed of at the whim of a couple tens of those powers operating in agreement if their national interests are at all seen to be threatened by the IPCC’s attempts to place those nations in a IPCC invented straitjacket of any sort.

    Dr Ottmar Edenhoffer’s quote from Jo’s headline post.

    We [ UN-IPCC ] redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy


    • #

      The top quote was made on the 30th September 1938;

      PM Neville Chamberlain arrived back in the UK today, holding an agreement signed by Adolf Hitler which stated the German leader’s desire never to go to war with Britain again.

      The two men met at the Munich conference between Britain, Germany, Italy and France yesterday, convened to decide the future of Czechoslovakia’s Sudetenland.

      Mr Chamberlain declared the accord with the Germans signalled “peace for our time”, after he had read it to a jubilant crowd gathered at Heston airport in west London.

      The German leader stated in the agreement: “We are determined to continue our efforts to remove possible sources of difference and thus to contribute to assure the peace of Europe.”


      The second quote was a part mis-translation which had an enormous impact on the respective nations at the time of the quote which was made on November 18th 1958.

      At the [ Polish ] Embassy party on November 18th, [ 1958 ] Khrushchev blamed Western-backed “Fascist gangs” for fomenting the rebellion in Hungary. He also denounced the “imperialists and their puppets” who had attacked Egypt, a recent Soviet ally.

      Then, according to an Associated Press report, Khrushchev added:

      “Socialist states…base ourselves on the idea that we must peacefully co-exist. About the capitalist states, it doesn’t depend on you whether or not we exist…If you don’t like us, don’t accept our invitations and don’t invite us to come to see you. Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you.

      For a more correct translation of this Krushchev quote ;

      As it turns out, a better literal translation of his words would have been, “We will be present when you are buried.”

      This was actually a pretty common saying in Soviet Russia. What Khrushchev really meant was, “We will outlast you.” It was just the usual “communism is better than capitalism” posturing that went on all the time in the Cold War, but thanks to misinterpretations like the one in a Time article, Americans thought Khrushchev was threatening to literally bury us in the rubble of a nuclear attack. And he didn’t clarify his statement for three whole years. While the U.S. operated under the assumption that Khrushchev was chomping at the bit to kill us, we watched as the U.S.S.R. launched both Sputnik and the world’s first intercontinental ballistic missile, and we consequently went space missile crazy ourselves.

      And to finish, compare the impact of those two quotes and the times they preceded and Ottmar Edenhoffer and his claims are no more than can be expected from a mere small time IPCC self promoting gasbag blowing tin the wind of his own farts.


      • #

        Rom; At the cost of Czechoslovakia Chamberlain bought the UK another year to forward the re-armament which had been going on since 1934. In this year were produced many of the Spitfires and Hurricanes which saved the nation in 1940.
        Khrushchev was nearly right, in 1962 he came close to burying ALL of us.
        Your comments about the UN (and yesterday about the NGOs) are spot on. Indeed I detect that the UN & NGOs have been used all along and are being encouraged to set themselves up in the role of scapegoats, who need to bleat loudly to attract (that is distract) the waiting predator.
        On the “Road Map” of climate progress, Paris is that area marked “Here Be Tygers


        • #

          Diogenese2 @ # 15.1.1

          “Diogenese,” a well deserved name and a well versed student of history I see, with shadows of your namesake as a Cynic and a Sage. :-)

          Diogenes of Sinope (c. 404—323 B.C.E.)


        • #
          Dave in the states

          Fair enough. I have no problem with it.


          • #
            Dave in the states

            That may not make sense to anybody. I wrote a reply to a comment that was too far off topic. Anyway that was meant as a reply, that I understood why and have no problem about it.


  • #

    50 000 people? Is this a conference or a symposium as a reward for being a shill?

    symposium – A convivial meeting for drinking, music, and intellectual discussion among the ancient Greeks.

    from Greek sumposion, from sumpinein to drink together, from sum-syn- + pinein to drink


  • #

    You have to keep in mind that Ottmar Edenhofer studied humility under Professor Doctor (Warm) Hans Joachim Schellnhuber.

    Smooth talkers but not nice people.


  • #
    David Maddison

    One of my favourite quotes about the true agenda of the warmists. Also, if you look at his Wikipedia entry it says that one of his influences was Marx, so basically here is a communist.


  • #

    I am actually relieved that all this is finally coming out.

    When I first brought this up back in 2008, some people accused me of perpetuating a (Insert title of Mel Gibson movie here) and even when I pointed it out, there was still no belief that this was their intent all along.

    Now even though I only found it in 2008, when I started out doing all this, the whole thing dates back to the dawn of Kyoto in 1997.

    The UNFCCC site detailed it for me, and that’s what made me sit up and take notice, the language they were using there. (Keep in mind here I was just starting out, so, to me, Wikipedia was a reference site that might be able to be trusted.)

    The more I searched, on the UNFCCC, and Kyoto itself, the more the language became plainly obvious, that this was more about the money than the environment.

    Link to UNFCCC site at Wiki, and dated 31 March 2008. Scroll down a little and note the bracketed statement under the heading Annex ll Countries. It seems innocuous enough, until you then check out the following link

    Link to Kyoto Protocol site at Wiki, and dated 31 March 2008. Scroll down and read whatever you want, but all of it is pretty plain really. Read especially the short text under the heading Financial Commitments.

    The whole thing details the setting up of ETS by Annex ll Countries to pay all the costs of the non Developed Countries. The money raised from the ETS is sent to the UN, and from there under that, the CDM, and via The World Bank, that money is then redistributed to those Countries.

    That’s what led me to the understanding that this was never really about the environment, but just about the money.



    • #

      Tony’s quote;

      this was never really about the environment, but just about the money.

      And here is why the IPCC and the UNFCCC nor Greenpeace , the WWF or any other body of considerable self promoting importance will ever succeed in making CO2 reduction and the BIG money making side of the global warming / climate change ideology, ever work.

      The BIG money has been and is being made in the fr**d surrounding the whole completely unrealistic, fr**d ridden, badly thought out, non science and ideology based and ultimately a completely impotent European carbon trading debacle

      From Fox News via the GWPF under carbon trading .; Sept 8th 2015

      UN climate change body suffers mammoth European carbon fraud

      The United Nations body that oversees greenhouse gas reductions is reeling from another cap-and-trade scandal that may have put 600 million tons of carbon emissions into the atmosphere — roughly speaking, the annual CO2 output of Canada or Britain — while the emissions were ostensibly suppressed, according to an independent study.

      In the process, the fraudsters, largely in Russia and Ukraine, were likely able to transfer credits for more than 400 million tons of their apparently bogus greenhouse savings by April 2015 into Europe’s commercial carbon trading system — the largest in the world –thereby undermining that continent’s ambitious carbon reduction achievements.

      Perhaps significantly, the vast bulk of the assumed fraud took place in countries that are — or were, in the case of Ukraine — notorious for their kleptocratic leadership under the regimes of Vladimir Putin and ousted Ukraine President Viktor Yanukovych, who fled his country in 2014. In Russia, much of the contract work for carbon project approval was carried out by state-owned Sberbank, which has been sanctioned by the U.S. and the European Union as part of the Western response to the Ukraine crisis.

      The bulk of the fraud occurred under the battered Kyoto Protocol for greenhouse gas emissions, but researchers who detailed the scandal warned that without tough international policing and clear definitions of what every country involved in the climate deal aims to achieve, something similar could happen in the global climate change deal that world leaders are expected to endorse in Paris in December and that is intended to start up in 2020.

      It remains to be seen whether those safeguards will be in place. Among other things, the emerging deal is based on what the U.N. calls “intended nationally determined contributions,” or INDCs, that leave individual countries wide latitude for “estimating and accounting for anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and, as appropriate, removals,” as well as how the countries themselves consider their INDCs to be “fair and ambitious.”

      [ more ]

      This is what you get for trading hot air in unidentified parcels that have an unknown origin, presumably float past with every breeze, can’t ever be identified as to their origins, are never ever able to be tested for their CO2 content as the traded parcels of hot air cannot be identified nor have any physical boundaries placed around them.

      When looked at in that light it a makes it a bit hard for any rational thinking person to even believe that anybody anywhere would be so utterly lacking in intelligence, so utterly stupid as to come up with a scheme like that which supposes that the misnamed “carbon ” can be identified, measured and traded even if it has no actual real time ability to be identified so as facilitate the trading of what is no more than an unbounded parcel of hot air that supposedly exists somewhere but nobody knows where it can be found or can identify that specific parcel of that hot air nor its amount and physical presence anywhere, anytime.

      In the end the traded Carbon credits as referenced to parcels and tonnages of CO2 are merely artifacts and imaginings of modeller’s assumption’s programmed into computer modeled emissions of unconfirmed and unverified and unvalidated CO2 releases that have never been and probably never will be properly verified in real life as a real and accurate representation of the amounts of CO2 emissions from any specific and identifiable source.

      Paris if it achieves even part of its agenda will merely provide more scope for an even greater ability to conduct massive fraud on an even larger scale and in even larger slices than did Kyoto unless and until the whole thing either collapses under its own weight through gross fr**d and outright blatant corruption or is renounced by a number of major economic and political powers on the same grounds.


  • #

    CAGW as food:

    9 Sept: BBC: Matt McGrath: Real deal or meal deal? Will new climate treaty be a ‘nothing burger’?
    According to the two co-chairs (Ahmed Djoghlaf and Dan Reifsnyder), this draft agreement is going to happen, essentially because they’re pretty amazing guys.
    “The atmosphere we have been able to create, what we have been able to do in this time is remarkable, extraordinary if you will,” said Dan Reifsnyder, without a hint of irony…
    These UN wonder-chairs say the parties have enough faith to allow them to shape a draft treaty from deeply held national interests…
    There are concerns that attempts to “harvest” the sense of trust will lead to something that’s merely a bowl of low hanging fruit – And in the words of one observer, so low hanging, they’re actually potatoes.
    I’m not sure the French, who will be chairing the meeting in Paris designed to “save the planet”, will be happy with plain auld spuds as the main course…
    There are some vague bells ringing, reminding me of 2009…
    UN executive secretary Christina Figueres says the proof will be in the pudding and the pudding will come out of the oven in Paris.
    But whether it’s a soufflé of substance, or a load of crepes, all the ingredients will be visible at October’s great Bonn bake-off!


  • #

    only Connie, near the end, mentions the KR Foundation. total CAGW lovefest with Flannery, Oxfam, Climate Council,, Greenpeace, Investor Group on Climate Change, assorted CAGW-infested academics, etc. not a sceptic in sight, but plenty of talk about how this lot has to fight against the sceptics to get media coverage! talk about delusional:

    9 Sept: The Conversation: What hope success at the Paris climate talks? In conversation with Connie Hedegaard
    by Nick Rowley, Adjunct professor at University of Sydney
    On August 23 in the Senate Room of the University of Sydney, the Sydney Democracy Network convened a roundtable meeting with Connie Hedegaard, former EU Climate Commissioner and President of the 2009 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change meeting in Copenhagen…
    Duncan Ivison, Deputy Vice Chancellor Research, University of Sydney: This university is absolutely committed to being a partner in discussions around climate change, not only this year but for many years hence. The Sydney Environment Institute and the Sydney Democracy Network are just two of the groups in the university helping to drive those discussions along…
    Nick Rowley: Looking around this room I am reminded of a quote from Lord Stern of Brentford: with climate change we have what he describes as “a complex, inter-temporal, international, collective action problem, under uncertainty”. Working in isolation, and without speaking with each another, economists, politicians, academics, public servants, lawyers, people who understand investment, and advocates cannot seek to address a problem of this complexity and magnitude…
    Connie Hedegaard: Thank you very much Nick for this effusive introduction. It is very good to be here and to see familiar faces.
    ***Tim Flannery it is very good to see you. What on earth can I tell you that you do not know?…
    The dynamic (for Paris) is different from Copenhagen. We have China and the US now “playing ball”…
    For example: the phasing out of fossil fuel subsidies. This must be a matter for the G20 or G7. The World Bank has established how this might be done…
    Another would be related to divestment: that as a result of the Paris agreement investment in new fossil fuel infrastructure would be seen as risky by mainstream investors…


  • #

    novel-length CAGW nonsense in the MSM media allegedly dominated by CAGW sceptics:

    7 Sept: NY Mag: Jonathan Chait: The Sunniest Climate-Change Story You’ve Ever Read
    This is the year humans finally got serious about saving themselves from themselves
    The rise in atmospheric temperatures from greenhouse gases poses the most dire threat to humanity, measured on a scale of potential suffering, since Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany launched near-simultaneous wars of conquest. And the problem has turned out to be much harder to solve. It’s not the money. The cost of transitioning away from fossil fuels, measured as a share of the economy, may amount to a fraction of the cost of defeating the Axis powers. Rather, it is the politics that have proved so fiendish…
    In the intervening years (since Copenhagen), the crisis has become rapidly less theoretical, as mountain snows have permanently disappeared, jungles have been burned for cropland, ice sheets have crumbled…
    It is extremely hard to force a shift to clean energy when dirty energy is much cheaper…
    Only one coal-fired plant has been green-lit since 2008, and new regulations make it virtually certain that no coal plant will break ground in the United States ***ever again…
    China has made colossal investments in green energy…
    And so, the possibility has come into view that, just as the developing world is skipping landlines and moving straight into cellular communication, it will forgo the dirty-energy path and follow a clean one…
    Eventually the world will wean itself almost completely off carbon-based energy. There is, suddenly, hope.

    take this, Jonathan!

    4 Sept: WSJ Blog: Eric Morath: Gas-Price Drop Takes Americans’ Interest in Fuel Economy Down With It
    Google searches for “MPG,” shorthand for the fuel-economy measure miles per gallon, decreased 32% in the last week of August compared with two years earlier… That nearly matches the 33% fall in the price for a gallon of regular gasoline during that time.
    The Google data shows a tie between movements in gasoline prices and interest in “MPG.”…
    U.S. auto dealers sold nearly 600,000 more sport-utility vehicles and pickup trucks through August, compared with the first eight months of last year, and almost 168,000 fewer cars, according to researcher Autodata Corp…
    The “decline likely reflects the decreased price of gasoline in August, and the consequent increased sales of light trucks and SUVs,” said Michael Sivak, a Michigan researcher.
    Sales data bears that out. Sales of the Volt, once viewed as a key element in General Motors’ postbankruptcy rebirth, fell 37% through August compared with the prior year. Sales of the Leaf are down 35%. Prius Hybrid sales slid7 17% and Focus sales slumped 6%…


  • #

    50,000 parasites in Paris on a Junket – wonder how big a carbon footprint hey will be leaving the world…


    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      I am speculating that there will be no room for them, due to a massive influx of Syrian Refugees.


      • #

        I’m speculating that a certain religious cult could be targeting the conference.

        How else to get a whole heap of its members close to Paris for December.

        No SANE person would be going near the place in the current “climate” ;-)


    • #
      David Maddison

      And how many will be flying Economy class as opposed to First and Business? I am pretty sure there will be plenty of spare seats in Economy.


  • #


    10 Sept: SMH: Peter Hannam: Heat records in Australia now 12 times more likely than cold ones, study finds
    The ratio of temperature extremes was more marked during the cooler seasons, with a faster drop of record cold days than at other times of the year.
    Night-time warm temperature records were also being broken more frequently than daytime ones, the researchers found…
    The paper’s release this week came as Perth on Wednesday had its earliest day of 31 degrees or warmer in data going back to 1897, the Bureau of Meteorology said…
    “The only year in the past 15 years to produce more cold records than warm records was 2011, which was impacted by two La Nina events at the beginning and end of the year that brought extensive rainfall,” Dr King, from Melbourne University’s School of Earth Sciences, said…
    When the models removed the increase in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases as a factor, the ratio of hot days and cold ones was basically equal, Dr Lewis said.
    David Karoly, a climatologist at Melbourne University, said the data showed an increase in the frequency of extremes – mostly hot ones…
    “If this trend continues with the continuing rise in greenhouse gases, there may come a time when the chances of a new record cold year being set in Australia will be close to zero,” Dr Lewis said.

    Wiley: Geophysical Research Letters: Dramatically increased rate of observed hot record-breaking in recent Australian temperatures
    Sophie C. Lewis & Andrew D. King
    Persistent extreme temperatures were observed in Australia during 2012-2014. We examine changes in the rate of hot and cold record-breaking over the observational record for Australia- and State-wide temperatures…

    WaPo has it as:

    “In a stationary climate, a climate where we don’t have any trend or long-term change, we expect hot and cold records to be broken at almost the same rate,” explains Sophie Lewis, the lead study author and a researcher at the Australian National University in Canberra. “But in the last 15 years, we see a dramatic increase in the frequency of hot records and the decrease of cold records.”…
    Lewis and King looked at how often Australia set hot and cold temperature records from the year 1910 through 2014. They only considered temperature records across the country as a whole and in each of its states or territories (except Tasmania), and only examined monthly, seasonal and annual records. Thus, the study did not examine daily records or records in individual locations. (This was in part to avoid problems introduced by the fact that over time, the number of individual temperature recording stations changes.)…


  • #

    somehow I forgot to paste the headline/url for WaPo:

    9 Sept: WaPo: Chris Mooney: The simple statistic that perfectly captures what climate change means


  • #

    ABC/Fairfax’s booming Chinese “carbon” trading sector isn’t doing all that well:

    LinkedIn: Carbon Pulse (London)…was founded by three ex-Reuters/Point Carbon journalists with almost 30 years experience between them in covering carbon markets and climate policy.

    8 Sept: Carbon Pulse: Stian Reklev: China’s national carbon price expected to debut at $6, survey finds
    CO2 permits in China’s national emissions trading scheme are expected to trade at around 39 yuan ($6.12, €5.46) in 2017 and rise to 56 yuan in 2020, according to a survey conducted by non-profit group China Carbon Forum.
    The survey, the second of its kind, mapped expectations about China’s carbon market and climate policy among 304 respondents within government, industry, consultancies and academia…
    The survey revealed the huge degree of confusion as to how and when China will roll outs its national ETS…
    However, in the new survey, more than half did not think China would link to any other country’s market until 2030 at the earliest…
    The survey also revealed deep discontent with the seven pilot markets, as only 1% of respondents said they were well designed.
    The markets have struggled with over-allocation, price volatility, low liquidity and a near complete lack of transparency, since the first pilots were launched in 2013.
    “The major problem continues to be the lack of public information – information which is not publicly available is used for trading by privileged players,” one of the survey respondents commented…

    9 Sept: Carbon Pulse: Stian Reklev: EU business urges China to rid carbon market of its ‘unfair’ lack of openness
    The lack of transparency and liquidity in China’s pilot emissions trading schemes creates an unfair environment and is keeping foreign carbon traders out of the market, the European Chamber of Commerce in China said Wednesday…
    None of the seven pilots release fundamental data on ETS emissions and allowance allocation, meaning only government regulators (and potentially the exchanges) know the demand-supply balance in the markets.
    According to the European Chamber of Commerce, this creates an uneven playing field for ETS participants…
    The lack of data not only harms the regulated community, but also makes markets more volatile and open to manipulation.”…
    The report also urged China to allow foreign auditors to work in the emission markets.
    To date not a single foreign company has been accredited as auditors in the pilot markets, while several domestic firms without any auditing experience have been included…
    It also urged China to let foreign firms trade CO2 allowances in China, both in the pilot schemes and in the national market…
    The Chamber also recommended that China allow futures and forward trading …


  • #

    read all:

    9 Sept: Carbon Pulse: Mike Szabo: World Bank eyes oil & gas sector GHGs as next target for reverse auctions
    The World Bank is mulling extending its Pilot Auction Facility (PAF) to help curb GHGs from the oil and gas sector, it said on Wednesday, publishing a preliminary analysis it commissioned on the idea.
    The report, authored by Oslo-based climate consultants Carbon Limits, said direct emissions of methane from the sector’s operations and CO2 from gas flaring are the two broad GHG sources being initially considered by the bank…
    The World Bank said it would now invite stakeholders to provide feedback on the findings and the idea of extending the PAF to the oil and gas sector.


    • #

      That’d be the same World Bank that refuses to lend money to developing nations to build coal-fired power stations, making it impossible to establish productive, small, local industry due to lack of reliable electrical supplies; and forcing the people to resort to life-shortening, uncontrolled indoor fires for cooking and heating; fuelled by a diminishing biomass of available dung and vegetation.


      • #
        David Maddison

        Here is a video of the horrors of indoor wood/dung stove cooking in Nigeria. Note that their solution is clean burning wood stoves rather than electric, probably because they know they will not be allowed electricity by the World Bank. (Under 5 mins length.)


  • #

    love the sub-heading: “but broader make-up could divide it”

    9 Sept: RTCC: Alex Pashley: UN climate science panel too northern, too male
    World authority on climate change’s lack of diversity reduces clout but broader make-up could divide it
    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is under “nuanced northern domination”, weakening the legitimacy of its global warming assessments, according to new research.
    The UN’s science agency and leading authority on global warming could produce better research if its report authors came from a wider range of countries, institutes, and academic backgrounds, a paper published in Nature Climate Change said on Monday…

    7 Sept: Nature: Patterns of authorship in the IPCC Working Group III report
    Esteve Corbera, Laura Calvet-Mir, Hannah Hughes & Matthew Paterson
    Examining patterns of co-authorship between WGIII authors, we identify the unevenness in co-authoring relations, with a small number of authors co-writing regularly and indicative of an epistemic community’s influence over the IPCC’s definition of mitigation…


  • #

    9 Sept: Carbon Pulse: EU Commission chief warns that bloc won’t sign weak climate deal
    European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker warned that the EU will not sign up to a global climate deal at any price and urged other nations to match the bloc’s ambition.
    “Let me be very clear to our international partners: the EU will not sign just any deal. My priority, Europe’s priority, is to adopt an ambitious, robust and binding global climate deal,” he said in his first annual State of the Union speech to the bloc’s parliament in Strasbourg…
    He cited climate change as “one of the root causes” of the widespread migration of people into Europe this summer. “Climate refugees will become a new challenge – if we do not act swiftly,” he added…
    “We have no silver bullet to tackle climate change, but our laws, such as the EU ***Emissions Trading Scheme, and our actions have allowed us to decrease carbon emissions whilst keeping the economy growing,” he said…
    (from full transcript) However, if Paris delivers, humanity will, for the first time, have an ***international regime to efficiently combat climate change.
    Paris will be the next stop but not the last stop. There is a Road to Paris; but there is also a Road from Paris…


  • #
  • #
    • #

      And others may regard “Jeff Id” as a nutcase – however, the anguish here is real and I share it to a large degree. Especially the comment on deliberate;y shutting off access to affordable energy for our children:


      • #

        Nutcase Jeff is not.

        It never occurred to me they would blow up the plants instead of mothballing them even after they blew up the Cape Fear Coal Plant.

        The repercussion of substituting Wind and Solar for that NC power plant has also begun. A power surge caused the transformer on the street to explode, my computer surge protector to burst into flame and toasted my microwave, refrigerator and deep freezer. EMSnews at Stevengoddards reported the same recently happened to her in upper New York state.

        June 4, 2015 Duke Energy implodes historic coal units at retired Cape Fear power plant in Moncure, N.C.

        With one final blast, Duke Energy’s retired, coal-fired Cape Fear power plant in Moncure passed into history today, marking both the end of major demolition at the site and the end of an era.

        Duke Energy’s contractor this morning imploded the plant’s two coal units, which began operating in 1956 and 1958, respectively.

        “It’s been an honor to spend most of my 40-year career at the Cape Fear Plant and watch as the region has grown up around us. We’ve been an important part of that growth,” said Danny Wimberly, Duke Energy’s manager of demolition and retirement at the site.

        “While it’s a bittersweet day for many employees who enjoyed their years working at the site, it also demonstrates our continued progress in modernizing the way we produce energy,” Wimberly said. “We’re building on a legacy that began with power plants like Cape Fear, and continues today with new power plants that generate electricity more efficiently and cleanly than ever before. That’s something all of us are proud of.”

        The plant began operating in 1923, producing affordable power and advancing industrial and residential growth in eastern North Carolina.

        Two of the site’s six coal-fired units were retired in 1977 and two in 2011.

        The remaining two coal-fired units, along with one of four oil-fired combustion turbine units on site, were retired in October 2012 as part of the company’s transition to cleaner, more efficient generation sources.

        The smokestacks and emission-control equipment were imploded in 2014. The remaining infrastructure at the site will be mechanically removed in the coming months.

        The company is now focused on restoring the land….

        Elaine Supkis says on June 17, 2015 at 2:57 am

        I figured something happened to your computer!

        We had surge problems and the electric company had to put in a much better transformer to stop surges after we had our computers blow out and the electrical input in the basement caught on fire.


        • #

          Will be fun in a few years time when they start removing useless. disfunctional wind turbines.

          Lots of youtube videos.. hopefully ! :-)


  • #

    Roman Emperor Constantine wanted one religion for the empire so he held his first council of Nicea in AD325. most people think that it was a gathering of Christian theologians and priests etc but it was not,other spiritual leaders from pagan faiths such as gnostics,followers of Isis and Mithras etc also attended . Constantine’s aims where to create a feudal system that turned the diverse populations within the Roman Empire into obedient surfs or slaves to the system,thats why pagan religions attended Nicea because there were common threads that where shared in all religions at that time and Constantine knew he needed a doctrine that all those faiths could identify with . Fastforward to modern times and agenda 21 , if your aim is to create a new world order with a world wide empire,you need to find a way to include many diverce cultures and faiths by creating a new religious doctrine that all those different groups can identify with, so what could be better than a false religion that includes nature worship and stewardship of the earth. HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF and THOSE WHO DO NOT LEARN HISTORY ARE DOOMED TO REPEAT IT .


  • #

    not decided as yet, but i’d like to see Australian taxpayers being able to opt out of funding ABC/SBS:

    10 Sept: Daily Mail: Daniel Martin: Will new TV licence fee be linked to the value of your house? Minister suggests levy could be paid along with council tax
    TV licence fee could be linked to value of person’s house under new plans
    At the moment everyone pays the same for TV licence – £145.50 a year
    But new proposal would see rich expected to contribute more than poor
    Licence fee evasion is a criminal offence, but the Government is considering decriminalisation. The BBC fears this would lead to fewer people paying…


  • #


    7 Sept: Nature: Climate change: Track urban emissions on a human scale
    Kevin Robert Gurney, Paty Romero-Lankao, Karen C. Seto, Lucy R. Hutyra, Riley Duren, Christopher Kennedy,
    Nancy B. Grimm, James R. Ehleringer, Peter Marcotullio, Sara Hughes, Stephanie Pincetl, Mikhail V. Chester,
    Daniel M. Runfola, Johannes J. Feddema& Joshua Sperling
    Cities need to understand and manage their carbon footprint at the level of streets, buildings and communities, urge Kevin Robert Gurney and colleagues…
    ???Luckily, scientists are gathering the data that city managers need — in studies that match sources of CO2 and methane with atmospheric concentrations. Now the research community needs to translate this information into a form that city managers can use. Emissions data need to be merged with socio-economic information such as income, property ownership or travel habits, and placed in software tools that can query policy options and weigh up costs and benefits…
    These should be tracked at least yearly. Such granular estimates are needed for several reasons: to verify emissions rates; to confirm progress towards reduction and support carbon trading, permits or taxation, etc etc


  • #

    David thanks and use it as you wish. gai, i think the age of enlightenment began with the invention of the printing press( 1′ve come across Dr Tim Ball talking about this somewhere) up and till that point the feudal courts and especially the church controlled the MSM (the church pulpit)but they couldnt controll the message from the free press , so people like Martin luther could get there thoughts and ideas more widely known,these days ofcourse we have a new tool of enlightenment the internet and so modern Martin luthers like lord Monckton can get there voices heard. And dont those that seek to controll us through the media just hate it. HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF AGIAN


  • #


    don’t you hate it when auto correct doesn’t work with caps ;-)


    • #

      LOL Yes Andy especially when your busy at work (signaller) and can only type inbetween trians.(whoops see what i did there)


  • #

    Interesting study by Phil Jones et al in 1999 that found just 0.57 C global temp increase from 1861 to 1997. Here is the relevant info from co2 science. But certainly not much increase after the end of a minor ice age and 150 years. And why was the 1978 to 1997 period of warming less than the earlier 20 year period?? (before 1950)
    Here’s the co2 Science article———-

    The Instrumental Surface Air Temperature Record of the Past 150 Years Reference
    Jones, P.D., New, M., Parker, D.E., Martin, S. and Rigor, I.G. 1999. Surface air temperature and its changes over the past 150 years. Reviews of Geophysics 37: 173-199.

    What was done
    The authors present a comprehensive update and analysis of the surface air temperature record of the globe for the last 150 years.

    What was learned
    From 1861 to 1997, global surface air temperature rose by 0.57°C; while from 1901 to 1997, it rose by 0.62°C. The bulk of this warming occurred within two 20-year periods: 0.37°C between 1925 and 1944, and 0.32°C between 1978 and 1997. The warming was greatest over the northern continents and over the half-year period December through May. In addition, over the period 1950-1993, nighttime (minimum) temperatures warmed at a rate of 0.18°C per decade, while daytime (maximum) temperatures warmed by 0.08°C per decade.

    What it means
    The earth has warmed slightly over the past century or so.

    Reviewed 1 December 1999


    • #
      David Maddison

      And it stopped the very slight warming in 1997 so it is correct to say only 0.57C warming over the last 154 years?


      • #

        “…The bulk of this warming occurred within two 20-year periods: 0.37°C between 1925 and 1944, and 0.32°C between 1978 and 1997….”

        However, at least in the USA, the temperature peak around the 1930s and the present day is cooler.

        Uncorrupted US Temperature Data Showed Cooling From 1930 To 1999

        The data was originally on the GISS web site at the URL below, but has since been deleted. I can’t imagine why.
        [John Daly captured the data]

        So what about since 1999? Temperatures have also cooled in the 12 years since Hansen corrupted the US temperature record.

        Bottom line is that the US has been cooling for 80 years, and Hansen et al have completely corrupted the data set.

        Go to website for graphs.


        • #
          David Maddison


          Given that original raw temperature data is being altered and then deleted by agencies such as our BOM and US NOAA etc. is there any source of uncorrupted temperature data that real scientists can access?

          [You can google UAH or RSS satellite temperature data. Dr Roy Spencer's (UAH data) site is of interest and published the UAH satellite data monthly. - Mod]


  • #

    50 000 people are being sent to Paris to achieve nothing?
    I am one person, even I could achieve that.


    • #
      David Maddison

      You and me could achieve “nothing” (if we wanted to) all by ourselves. These people are communists or similar – to achieve nothing they need a collective of 50,000 such useless Para-sites. By themselves alone, they would not even be smart enough to produce just “nothing”, they need 50,000 to get that high.


  • #

    I am flattered that you borrowed my post.
    Next time I would appreciate a mention.

    All the best with the good work

    [Cyrus, thanks for commenting. I searched google images with many keywords to find the original and couldn't. I asked Egor where he got it, and he didn't know. I'm very happy to link in attribution here, credits are always important. -- Jo


  • #

    [...] This conference is NOT about climate or pollution – it is about world government and redistribution of wealth and power to UN agencies:… [...]


  • #

    It’s nice the UN has admitted scary global warming scam is means to further their goal to act as a broker in redistributing wealth .

    The motivation is a self serving exercise to skim $Billions into UN coffers while they finance their one world government ambitions.

    The UN has never articulated or provided a compelling case why they feel the need to play the role of Robin Hood… but shouldn’t they ?
    Otherwise their motives become a bit to transparent . Bigger pay , great perks all on the backs of the so called have countries .

    The UN has sadly evolved into a boil that is in desperate need of being lanced . The scam to fool people through scary global warming fear mongering dishonors the founding legacy of the UN and morphs it into a cynical self absorbed goverbusiness .

    The UN needs to explain their agenda and what their expected cut is for spreading the cheese .


  • #
    Egor TheOne

    Some reading which shows who started all this CAGW / CACC rubbish and why !
    All very sound reading but take note in particular of pdf page 3 ( science page 40 )..Enjoy !


  • #