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


Advertising


Australian Speakers Agency



GoldNerds

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



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper



Archives

UN wants an ‘international tribunal of climate justice’ — power to tell democracies what to do

Thus do the claws of centralized big-government grow. I’s a committee, then a tribunal, then one day, a court?

An actual international court would end up being corruption-in-a-can — (think FIFA but with more money). The only way any legal system can work is with one law for all. As soon as countries can have individual targets, clauses and excuses, the wheeling and dealing begins. But a climate court won’t even pretend to start with an even playing field.

The danger of a system that doesn’t have “one rule for all” is already obvious in western democracies, where legal rights are being eroded by individual licensing systems. One farmer speaks out, and is slapped with 33 conditions that other farms don’t have to meet — their cash flow is cut and they slowly bleed dry, fighting all the while, and constantly being offered the possibility of better conditions “any month now”. Other farmers become afraid to speak, lest they get targeted. The Bureaucrats divide and conquer and become Kingmakers.

Daily Mail writes on the International Tribunal of Climate Justice — Sara Malm

The United Nations may launch an International Tribunal of Climate Justice which could see states who fail to uphold the international deal to tackle climate change brought before a court.

The International Tribunal of Climate Justice has been suggested as one of three options to ensure that all parties follow what is agreed during the Paris summit next month.

In essence, this means that any UN member state who agrees to the international deal to tackle climate change and fails to honour its commitment can be brought before the tribunal.

Toothless, Trojan, or Effective Tool?

This tribunal of climate justice could well be a toothless tiger, with no enforceable authority — “nothing to be afraid of”. But if that’s the case, it’s just a junket-job reward for the “right” people and why have it at all? On the other hand, if it has the power to change domestic energy policies, or direct billions in fines or reparations, that’s real power over voters. Once started, how hard would it be to “add teeth”? Perhaps legal minded readers can help?

But even without enforceable power — the toothless institution becomes a tool in the hands of the domestic thought police. Just the threat of being taken to “court” will be enough to beat weak politicians into line. The tribunal could produce embarrassing declarations of how backward a politician is, and the local big-government-loving media buffs will pick and choose which reports to amplify to suit themselves. It’s just another chance for the big-gov-blob to score PR against their favourite targets. It’s leverage.  Because of the Love-media effect the tribunal is primarily a tool against Western Democracies. Third world tyrants would hardly care about a slap on the wrist from a UN committee: they don’t want votes, and they own their media.

Real democracies don’t need international tribunals. They need accurate information, and freedom of speech.

The good voters will act (as they have already done) to protect species, to set up nature reserves, pollution controls, and to fund research as they see fit.  The idea of an international court presupposes that the voters can’t deal with “a potential catastrophe”.

The possibility of an International Tribunal of Climate Justice has been criticised in the U.S., where some commentators have argued that it will lead to developing nations dragging President Obama into court and bypassing Congress. 

‘Whatever they call it, countries who sign onto this agreement will be voting to expand the reach of the UN climate bureaucracy, cede national sovereignty, and create a one-way street along which billions will be redistributed from developed to poor nations,’ claims CFACT co-founder Craig Rucker.

‘Developed nations would be expected to slash their emissions while the “poor” [developing] countries expand theirs,’ he adds.

The only document any government should sign must have an out-clause. If the voters don’t like what Obama-Turnbull-Trudeau-Cameron-Key-et al sign up for, they must be able to opt out.

The Draft treaty is almost unreadable. But the ambition is clear.  The “best available science” according to who? Not the voters.

1. Collective long-term goal

Option 1:
[Parties aim [to achieve the global temperature goal], in accordance with the best available science [and the principles of the Convention], through [long-term global [low-[carbon][emission] transformation] [[climate][carbon] neutrality]], [and peaking their [net] emissions] [by 2030][20XX][as soon as possible], [with a [x]40-[y]70% net emission reduction below 2010 levels by 2050][according to the global carbon budget distribution based on climate justice], and [overall reductions][[net] zero emissions] [over the course of the century][by 2050][by 2100].2]
Option 2:
[Parties aim to reach long-term global low-emission transformation, in the context of sustainable development and equitable access to  atmospheric space {placeholder for further elaboration of the context, including CBDR, comprehensiveness, distribution of global carbon  budget based on climate justice and etc.}.]
Option 3:
[In pursuit of the objective of the Convention set out in its Article 2,][and][to achieve the long-term temperature goal set out in Article 2 of this Agreement,] Parties aim to reach [by X date] [as soon as possible] [a peaking of global greenhouse gas emissions] [and rapid reductions of global greenhouse gas emissions thereafter to at least] [40-70] [70-95] per cent below 2010 levels by 2050] [and zero net greenhouse gas emissions in the period 2060 - 2080] [[bearing in mind that peaking will vary for different countries and will be longer for developing countries] [[and] bearing in mind social and economic development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of developing country Parties]][[in pursuing [decarbonisation of the global economy over the course of this century] [global low - carbon transformation] [global low-emission transformation]] [in the sharing of the remaining global emission budget]].

Article 11 (FACILITATING IMPLEMENTATION AND COMPLIANCE)

Option 2: [An International Tribunal of Climate Justice as][A] [compliance mechanism] is hereby established to address cases of non-compliance of the commitments of developed country Parties on mitigation, adaptation, [provision of] finance, technology development and transfer [and][,] capacity-building[,] and transparency of action and support, including through the development of an indicative list of consequences, taking into account the cause, type, degree and frequency of non-compliance.
A facilitative mechanism is hereby established to facilitate implementation by developing country Parties for enhanced action on mitigation, adaptation and transparency of action. The mechanism shall be facilitative, non-punitive, non-adversarial and non-judicial.]

It shall apply the following Consequences…

Who gets the right to change the clauses below? How hard would it be to ramp up these clauses?

The Compliance Branch shall examine, determine and address issues of non-compliance. Where it has determined that a Party is not in compliance, it shall apply the following consequences, taking into account the cause, type, degree and frequency of the non-compliance of that Party and pay attention to the respective national capabilities and circumstances of Parties as appropriate:
(a) Declaration of non-compliance; and
(b) Request of the development of a compliance action plan.]

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.1/10 (74 votes cast)
UN wants an 'international tribunal of climate justice' -- power to tell democracies what to do, 9.1 out of 10 based on 74 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/os8t6tt

155 comments to UN wants an ‘international tribunal of climate justice’ — power to tell democracies what to do

  • #
    Dirtman

    First step toward implementing one-world government.

    380

    • #

      Nah, surely this is about the 400th step. But don’t call it one-world government, because that makes you a conspiracy theorist. Call it One World Parliament, because that makes you a hero.

      591

      • #
        Dennis

        Please note that earlier this year the ALP Deputy Leader said that she does not agree with having sovereign borders.

        It is often difficult to decide what difference there is between the far-left of Labor and the Greens.

        380

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          Communism by a 1000 cuts…..

          Congressional Record–Appendix, pp. A34-A35
          January 10, 1963

          Current Communist Goals

          EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA

          IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

          Thursday, January 10, 1963

          4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.

          11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow.

          15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.

          20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.

          21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.

          24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.

          25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

          26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”

          27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a “religious crutch.”

          32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture–education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

          40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

          41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.

          Any of this sound familiar?

          110

      • #
        Robber

        It’s not about democratic government, but dictatorship.

        250

      • #
        Dariusz

        Then we will have the world of something between Star Trek and UN like D.O.O.P. organisation from Futurama where Spock mixes with Bender and we all “live long and prosper”… not.

        90

      • #
        Manfred

        …because that makes you a hero. [/sarc]

        …or a shiny black bug that’s just crawled out from under a dank green rock to proclaim their vision for the ‘future’.

        One day soon someone will finally notice and exclaim, ‘oh look, he’s just a cockroach’.

        (Thanks to Gary Larsen)

        10

    • #
      Eddie

      One of the perks of being a global bureaucrat is tax free salaries, because they aren’t subject to any government.
      That’s the only good thing I can imagine of having a World government, in theory anyway.

      110

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Tax free salaries are a myth. If everybody became “a global bureaucrat”, and exempt from paying tax, there would be no income to pay the tax-free salaries.

        So you have to have at least two “classes” in society, a ruling class and a peasant class. The ruling class are totally dependent on the peasant class for the production of goods and services.

        But they currently think that is OK, because that is what happens today, to some extent.

        But what they fail to understand is that people will be very adept at getting around the system. The communist countries have always had black markets for the exchange of goods and services, without the need for currency.

        Go to any rural area in the western world, and you will find “farmers markets” where people sell their produce. It is only a small step to barter, for an exchange of value, that does not include a taxable currency.

        Bureaucratically designed constructs always have a tendency to collapse under their own weight, and to devolve into structures that are uncanningly like free markets.

        50

    • #
      Angus Black

      This is less like a step towards a world governmant, as such, than it is to the recreation of the medieval Roman Catholic Church (this seems very reminiscent of the Spanish Inquisition). A sort of supra-national parallel authority.

      Of course, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition: Our chief weapon is…

      40

  • #
    Yonniestone

    The people that support this idea of one global power having management over their lives show an incredible amount of faith in others they don’t know or probably never will, at least with the Democratic system you get to see the actors performing before you invest in their troupe.

    If any examples are needed as to why this NWO system will fail it’s the premise of it’s need in the first place, to control the weather by regressing our technology and quality of life, anyone with access to a basic education that can’t see this as being a disaster for all people should be up for a global Darwin Award.

    350

    • #
      Eddie

      It may be the idea of hating the neighbours you know & imagining you’ll get on better with the ones that you don’t, for a while anyway.

      100

    • #
      • #
        mark

        Malcolm take note, whilst a majority of Australians think the climate does change, nearly half ALP voters do not believe it is caused by humans and three quarters of conservative voters the same….that is a big cohort of the Australian community that will feel disenfranchised if Malcolm and Greg and Julie sign us up to world domination.

        270

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        I am bemused too. For 75% of australians to believe in man made climate change with only the Greens (at 76%) implies that The Age thinks that over 98% will vote Green. On the actual figures only 45.6% believe that climate change is caused by humans, not something you would realise from the ABC headlines this morning.

        Figures for believers
        Liberal 28
        Labour 59
        Nationals 22
        Greens 76
        Independents 46

        110

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        bemused

        The very fact that the CSIRO has created and distributed this material shows where its’ priorities lie.

        NOT WITH SCIENCE.

        Why would any reputable scientific organisation be so revealing as to run this Poll to gauge the attitude of the community to this topic except to aid some politician to cover the scientific reality.

        I would have been much more impressed with an article by CSIRO on the REAL behaviour and effect of human origin CO2 on world temperatures but unfortunately there would be nothing to write about.

        No! All they want to do is talk around the issue; not deal with it.

        It is a scientific Sword of Damocles hanging over them and IT WILL FALL!

        KK

        121

    • #
      Slywolfe

      Those in favor EXPECT to be among the rule-makers, but exempt from compliance.

      110

  • #
    Manfred

    The idea of an international [climate] court presupposes that the voters can’t deal with “a potential catastrophe”.

    NO. It presupposes that the authority and mandate exist to create and implement law, to enforce law and to exact penalties for failing to comply.

    The lingua franca used by the UN betrays its ambition. It considers itself World Government in Waiting. Nothing less. 2030 is the focal point and the ‘creep’ is well underway. The UN and its appendages, aided and abetted by ‘civil society’ progressively undermine societal freedom and independence – both personal and national. Freedom is replaced by tyranny under the illusion of wisdom while political correctness installed the foundation – an inability to forcibly say ‘NO’.

    It’s time to say ‘NO’.

    Where is John Galt?

    250

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      NO !!!

      A thousand time NO!!

      To the united nations.

      Please do NOT capitalise (get the pun?) the united nations.

      KK

      50

  • #
    Yonniestone

    We should notice the language used and the ideas it implants, ‘low carbon’ is misused for CO2 but implies the long held Malthusian belief of people (carbon based life) in numbers are a problem for Earth, how much of a problem depends on the totalitarian regime in power and examples can be sourced from the many acts of genocide/war that were implemented for far less than weather cooking.

    231

  • #

    A prerequisite for having a court to measure adherence to emissions targets is to have a standard, independent and objective method of measuring emissions. There is no unique method. An extreme example is Indonesia for 2005, which I looked at last weekend. The figures I have found so far for total greenhouse gas emissions in MtCO2e are

    UNFCCC – 2829
    EDGAR – 1171
    WRI CAIT 2.0 – 1584
    BAPPENAS – 1400
    Indonesian INDC – 1800

    Of Note

    1. The largest estimate is 2.4 times larger than the smallest.

    2. BAPPENAS is the Indonesian “National Development Planning Agency”. The Indonesian INDC – the climate plan – ignored its own expert data, presumably so that they can say they plan to cut emissions by 2030, not increase them. The unconditional Indonesian offer is to cut emissions by 29% from the BAU forecast of 2881. i.e. to 1700. Any organisation with the authority to establish a court would have flung the Indonesian’s submission back at them for corrections – along with the majority of other countries submissions.

    4. The UNFCCC is the controlling UN body. Every major submission published was accompanied by a “Country Brief” factsheet. Any competent accountant, with experience of doing basic budgeting for a government department or a business, would put these figures in a spreadsheet and sent them to all countries. They would have also put cells to fill in for the projections and plans through to 2030. That way you could compare these plans to properly control global emissions. But the UNFCCC accepts any waffle put its way, with numbers incomplete.

    5. WRI is the World Resources Institute, a huge environmentalist organisation funded by large corporations (ALCOA, Shell, General Motors, Facebook…), trust funds of long-dead billionaires, about 20 Governments & WWF. Their mission statement

    WRI’s mission is to move human society to live in ways that protect Earth’s environment and its capacity to provide for the needs and aspirations of current and future generations.

    100

  • #
    Dennis

    Will our new Prime Minister and his colleagues return from the failed Paris Conference as former Prime Minister Rudd did from Copenhagen?

    http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/andrewbolt/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/paris_climate_talks_barely_pretending_to_even_pretend_fo_stop_warming_they_/#commentsmore

    50

    • #
      Bill

      NO, young justin has already promised to sign anything the parisites put before him and his new science minister is a committed global warming fanatic.

      00

  • #
    Eddie

    A Justice Tribunal* merely to
    (a) Declare a non-compliance; and
    (b) Request an action plan.]

    I don’t think so.

    * – why did I already read that as : Criminal Justice. (Had to do a second take)

    50

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      Yes but it would be the criminals running the “justice” tribunal….like lunatics running the asylum….

      Power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely.

      Imagine a whole world run by sociopathic Left-wing Nhilists baying for Skeptics blood….pretty scary stuff.

      I predicted they would do something like this – they are in so deep, they have to double up on the size of the lie to stop it being exposed. They have the bull by the tail but their pathogical egos cant comprehend the concept of being wrong, so
      they just crank the hype up another notch.

      A Climate Inquisition.

      110

      • #

        Imagine a whole world run by sociopathic Left-wing Nhilists baying for Skeptics blood….pretty scary stuff.

        It will be just like this until they actually end up taking over. Then, with the absolute power in their grasp, they’ll make their final error.

        They’ll turn off the coal fired power plants.

        Then there will be bewildered looks, as they ask each other ….. “What the hell just happened then?”

        That’s the end of them right there.

        We win.

        Pity we had to wait until that moment though.

        Tony.

        100

  • #
    • #
      handjive

      Party Divides: Expertise in and Attitude towards Climate Change among Australian Members of Parliament

      Results of the survey, undertaken in late 2009, suggest that climate change expertise is low to moderate among MPs, and that there is no correlation between expertise in and concern about climate change.

      The survey reveals important differences in attitudes to climate change by party.

      About 40 per cent of Coalition (Liberal and National) MPs are climate change ‘deniers’, but no Labor Party (ALP) MPs are.

      ALP MPs rate climate change as the most important (with water management) out of four long-term challenges, but Coalition MPs rate it as the least important (after not only water, but also aging and defence).

      All ALP MPs think climate change demands urgent action, and that Australia should play a leadership role globally, but only about one-fifth of Coalition MPs does.

      Even those Coalition MPs who are climate change ‘believers’ tend to give lower importance to climate change than ALP MPs.
      http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/eenccepwp/0810.htm
      ~ ~ ~
      Study: Liberals Want to Mitigate Climate Change, Conservatives to Adapt to It

      http://news.virginia.edu/content/study-liberals-want-mitigate-climate-change-conservatives-adapt-it
      . . .
      So, let’s see PM Talkbull’s best climate science to convince us.

      Not off to a good start by stopping a scientific inquiry into the BoM’s dodgy data adjustments.

      120

    • #
      clive

      More made up stats from the people who are supposed to be on “Our Side”

      40

  • #
    handjive

    UN reveals Paris climate agreement would be just the first step of a “ratcheting up process”

    Environmentalists predict catastrophic consequences if a ratcheting-up policy fails to gain universal acceptance at the upcoming global summit.

    The key, say negotiators, is to enshrine measures in the accord so that, for many years to come, nations will be obliged to do more.

    “It is probably the most important issue to be included in the Paris deal.

    Without a ratchet mechanism, the Paris deal will be like building a beautiful car with no engine.”

    Agence France-Presse
    BONN October 29, 2015

    100

    • #
      me@home

      Don’t worry HJ they’ll get a rat***t mechanism.

      20

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      The new eco-religion reeks of the futility of prophets ( priests ) of Baal in the OT in 1 Kings 18.

      Much yelling and self flagellation, ultimately producing nothing. Thats what happens when you back an imaginary horse, in a real horse race.

      The Baal prophets didnt fare so well afterward, either….

      60

  • #
    pattoh

    http://www.rba.gov.au/chart-pack/balance-payments.html

    If the RBA was honest enough to plot this on one scale instead of two, even the man in the street with a mortgage would understand how vital recources are to the economic health of this nation.

    A few years ago COAL exports alone accounted for 22% of our foriegn earnings with Oil & Gas ~another 10+%.

    The resources sector employs ~5% of the work force.

    If these selfrighteous deluded Turnbull Lovers & Green voters want Australia to become a third world country; they are enthusiastically going the right way about it.

    Does anybody seriously believe that a bunch of un-elected, unanswerable corruptable bureaucrats in the UN will allow Australia anything but a patina of Sovereign Rights?

    How long before their perception of & prescription for Global Good over rides & dictates & mandates decrees on energy, food production population movements?

    “Take your pills and don’t ask questions. Drink the sweet wine of entertainment we have given you. Don’t think for yourself: just believe. The truth will no longer be published unless we allow it to be.”

    190

  • #
    duncan veasey

    I posted this at WUWT a couple of days back, under Lord M’s first class assault on the UK Supremogreen Judges, picked up by Ms LaF. and outlined here recently. Seems we are going to get yet another layer of legal Supersupremogreens!

    “Surely the real problem here is too many Courts….Supreme, European, …too many Tribunals and Judicial Enquiries, with too many Judges and consequent dilution of top talent with political appointments and propensity to make mischief not judgments.
    Didn’t notice Lin Yutang’s famous truth on first scan through all this:

    “Where there are too many policemen, there is no liberty. Where there are too many soldiers, there is no peace. Where there are too many lawyers, there is no justice.” There are an awful lot of lawyers.”

    QED, I think. Surely the Grand Intergalactic Superdoopersupreme Court is next up. Greenlaw!….out of control and heading our way….via a nice flight to Paris.(Business class of course.)

    151

  • #
    Ross

    So if you look at Christopher Booker’s piece you’ll see most of the major “emitters” have got themselves covered already

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11968064/Why-the-Paris-climate-treaty-will-be-the-flop-of-the-year.html

    Their plans, in reality, are not looking at major reductions.

    This proposal might explain why the legal fraternity in the UK had the state sponsored conference recently where they were talking about Courts making decision on AGW — they were just saying all the right words so they would be in front of the queue for a job if this Court eventuates (ie. more troughing !!).

    If I had the money, I would be putting a “open letter” in the major papers in NZ and Australia inviting the respective PMs to publically say whether they would support this proposal — before they go to Paris.

    70

    • #
      Dennis

      I am not aware of the present government having an election mandate to enter into a binding agreement at the Paris Conference.

      But I am fed up with politicians who effectively dictate to their constituents and seem to believe that once elected they can do whatever they want.

      180

  • #
    handjive

    U.N. Agenda 2030 has a fix: Step right up for your ‘universal ID’

    U.N. Agenda 2030 calls for ‘universal ID’ for all people

    This “universal ID,” which grabs the biometric data of refugees, is just a starting point for the United Nations.
    The goal is to eventually bring all people into the massive data bank.
    The proof is in the U.N.’s own documents.

    Target 16.9 under the goal of “Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions” reads as follows: “By 2030, provide legal identity for all, including birth registration.”

    Hungary Prime Minister Viktor Orban was quoted by a public radio outlet this week calling out Soros for his backing of the migrant invasion, saying:

    “His name is perhaps the strongest example of those who support anything that weakens nation states, they support everything that changes the traditional European lifestyle. These activists who support immigrants inadvertently become part of this international human-smuggling network.”

    Then comes the final admission by the World Bank that the new biometric IDs are not just for refugees.

    “Moreover, the nature of the deployments has required an economically feasible solution, and has demonstrated that reliable, biometric ID cards can affordably be used on a large scale.

    It offers hope for the UN’s Sustainable Development Goal of getting legal ID into the hands of everyone in the world by the year 2030 with its Identification for Development (ID4D) initiative.”

    [snipped statement and link]

    [I took the liberty of removing your final statement and its link. We don't have the time or space to devote to that subject matter. And I know it really deserves discussion but it's too controversial to get into, a real can of worms. So we must stay on the topic of this thread and the blog in general. Sorry.] AZ

    100

  • #
    dan

    Politicians are toothless, they are wheeled out centre stage to protect the votes, truth being optional. The dangerous ones are the unelected bureaucrats. Bureaucrats wage constant war on the people via regulations, this Court being the latest example. Their reward for selfless devotion to wealth creation and the centralisation of power is a fat tax-free bank account and the opportunity to organise the ants, regardless of how well the ants are doing.

    We need to know who these people are, drag them out from behind the curtains, detail their earnings and wealth for all to see, list the departments they work for and their politics.

    Well past time to fight back against this corruption.

    140

  • #
    ROM

    .
    The Road To a UN Hell is paved with Good Intentions
    .

    Need any more to be said?

    100

  • #
    AndyG55

    The UN wants global rule.

    ISIS wants global rule.

    Who will have the “numbers” in Paris?

    131

  • #
    Neville

    We should give Bolt ,Marohasy, Nova , Carter, Watts, Plimer etc medals for helping to win this argument against the extremists. Now to somehow stop these [snip] wasting countless billions $ to try and fix a mostly natural and variable climate .

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/csiro_most_australians_are_now_global_warming_sceptics/

    [Avoiding the word I snipped will avoid moderation. Thanks.] AZ

    81

  • #
    Robdel

    This is how unelected dictatorships thrive.

    50

  • #
    Neville

    The media continues to lie for Shorten, with a few notable exceptions. And why is my other comment stuck in moderation?

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/dont_tell_the_truth_media_fails_bill_shortens_warming_test/#commentsmore

    10

    • #
      Egor TheOne

      Old Shady Shorty co2ing around the pacific in a lear jet in search of ‘Climate Omens’ !

      Or is it votes ? Is there any difference ?

      I think Carbon Pollution Bill , is well on the way to falling on his sword with much assistance from envious deputy-dogs !

      Maybe he can con the pre-schooler vote with his Carbon Pollution Rant !

      Does this clown know that he is calling himself Carbon Pollution ?

      At least he has one thing right !

      10

  • #
    Bite Back

    It’s time to tell the UN to kiss our… And you’ll all know even if I don’t say it.

    Dissent from popular opinion is not a crime. And believe it or not, the UN is still not the government of the world but is made up of sovereign nations with the right to tell the larger organization where to go and it’s now well past time to do exactly that.

    If we stop sending them money they will die for lack of being able to pay for their bloated salaries and all their programs will go down with them. And what can they do about it? Nothing. They have no army, no navy, no air force. Anything of that kind depends on our supplying it for them. It’s time for a little tightening of our national pursestrings and mean it.

    Anything useful that the UN may be doing can be made up for with a much smaller organization with a smaller budget and a much more specific and much narrower mandate. They are not the savior of the world.

    BB

    120

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      The League of Nations was formed, after the First World War, to prevent future global wars. It spectacularly failed. The UN was formed, after the Second World War, from the ashes of the League of Nations, to a) prevent future wars between member nations, and b) to reduce the potential for nuclear war. It failed in preventing conflict, succeeded in preventing nuclear war, but failed to reduce the threat of nuclear war, which is still a major problem, if you think of North Korea. As an organisation, the UN is top heavy and has little relevance at the grass roots level where it should have the most influence.

      In my opinion, Australia and New Zealand ought to declare themselves rogue nations, and tell the rest of the world where they can stick their UN. That would mean that we would need to be self sufficient, and live within our national means. But of all the nations in the world, we would actually have the best chance to do that.

      70

      • #
        Bite Back

        RW,

        I respectfully disagree with part of what you said. The UN may have had a part in preventing both the threat of nuclear war and an actual war. But I think it much more likely that what 2 atomic bombs actually did to 2 Japanese cities is the far more powerful deterrent. Nothing stops you faster than the thought of getting one dropped back in your lap when the awful power of them is so very visible and visceral.

        Now, as the memory of those 2 bombs fades into history, we see the belligerence of Iran and North Korea beginning to threaten atomic bombs being used again, with the UN seemingly not only powerless to stop it but apparently willing to tolerate those 2 bad citizens of the world, if not actually encourage them.

        That the UN has failed miserably to prevent war goes without saying. I would vote for America to join Australia and New Zealand in telling the world where to stick its UN. With the USA being the largest single source of UN money, a cutoff from us would be a very hard blow. See [1] and [2] just for 2 sources to show how badly the situation is out of control, untrackale and funded so lopsidedly by America. We, above all others need to stop sending money to that failed organization.

        A search on “UN, source of funding” will get you a very long list of references, all showing that we pay far too large a percentage and how badly the situation is out of control (142,000,000 hits on Google). The situation stinks.

        BB

        30

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          You are right. The prevention of Nuclear war was the major concern when the UN was created. It is specifically mentioned in the Charter, or in the supporting documentation, precicely because of the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The concern of getting one dropped “back on your lap”, was what caused the armes race of the Cold War: something the UN was powerless to stop.

          So, if they fail to add value, as we agree they do, then the question must be asked, “What organisation would be better?” I believe that the UN themselves, have asked that question, and have come up with the answer, “One World Government”.

          That would be a great idea, except for the ever increasing levels of corruption that already exist within the UN. Corruption creates factions, which evolve into power bases, which leads to tension, and creates mistrust, which leads to war.

          The only thing that might work, is unhindered international trade, based on a single world-wide currency, indexed to a finite physical resource, that is not used for any other purpose.

          Unfortunately, the bankers and investors don’t seem to like that idea very much.

          10

          • #
            Bite Back

            RW,

            It’s 2 days after your comment so I hope you’ll see this.

            One World Government

            I think that’s exactly what they want. And with that will come absolute power over everyone, eventually even over any nations that try to stay out of the resulting government. They will be brought in by force if necessary.

            What follows would be such a temptation to corruption that the present state of the UN’s corruption would seem desirable by comparison.

            I do not know how to solve this problem because so many are already either corrupted by money and power that the momentum may be too great to stop it. We already have far too many people willing to sell themselves and their freedom for so cheap a price as a “free lunch”, a lunch that’s anything but free.

            The path of civilizations has always been inexorably toward dictatorship until they collapse. And this time it will be the collapse of the entire world.

            I hope some survive and will be able to rebuild. The slow fall of Rome that left enclaves of people relatively untouched by the problems associated with the fall will not happen this time. There will be no places on Earth where groups will be outside the influence of the UN until the end. Our technology will see to that. So those who’re left will go through what I can only call, living hell. Our climb out of tribalism, dictatorship into relatively benign governments took a long time. Much of the world never reached that state. And we are throwing it all away.

            I don’t like saying things like this. But history tells a story that we are now repeating in our headlong rush to save ourselves from ourselves.

            00

            • #
              Bite Back

              About the arms race: No one liked it but it may have been a good thing. It kept the threat of getting one back in your lap alive and doing its job. I’ll be the last one on Earth to want to attack anyone else. But I’ll be first to say, no, you better not attack me because I’ll destroy everything you have if you do. And in spite of the belligerence of the Soviet Union and now that of Russia, I don’t believe there was ever a real threat of use of the bomb against anyone — until now.

              BB

              00

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                The USSR were belligerent. That changed when the Soviet version of Communism collapsed under it’s own weight.

                Russia is now simply devious, under Putin, who is a master of the long game.

                I am not sure which is worse.

                00

              • #
                Bite Back

                I can’t figure Putin closely enough to say if you’re right or wrong about him. But certainly he’s a problem. He dreams of reconstituting the authoritarian rule and the empire he grew up with. That cannot be good.

                My fear of new nuclear threats is because of North Korea, governed by a certifiable mental case who will murder anyone who does not agree with him, intellectually a spoiled child with his finger on the nuclear trigger; and Iran, governed by madmen who for religious reasons believe a nuclear shootout is a good idea.

                I am in a fit because world leaders don’t appear able to recognize these threats and do what’s necessary to stop or mitigate them sufficiently.

                00

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              UN Planners tend to oscillate between short-term expediency, and panic-induced decision making.

              I do not believe that there is a grand plan for a One World Government, locked away somewhere, like some holy relic.

              I do believe however, that they have developed a vision, over time, of what life might be like if they could only be allowed to make all of the decisions, without any argument, and without inciting any form or rebellion. What I describe, is Government by Bureaucracy, and that is the experiment that failed in the Soviet Union. But, the current bunch of politicians at the UN think they have learnt from the Soviet experiment, and will do better next time.

              As I alluded to before, Bureaucracies create factions, and infighting, and eventually, splinter groups that feel that they can and should change the system, and so bureaucracy devolves into the infighting of a feudal system, during which strong leaders emerge, which then form dynasties. Look at the history of North Korea, and some of the post colonial African nations.

              My children and grand children are probably in for a rough ride, but those who have figured out what is happening will be able to game the system, and thus survive.

              00

            • #
              Bite Back

              I do not believe that there is a grand plan for a One World Government, locked away somewhere, like some holy relic.

              Perhaps so. Maybe even probably so. Neither of us can read the minds of those who work developing UN plans and guidance for the rest of us to follow. So who knows for sure? But whatever is the case, everything they come up with works toward that end. From the Wildlands project to Agenda-21 on through to the rights of the child, human rights and carbon mitigation, even to worldwide gun control, does it not all work toward our being under the control of the UN? We may submit voluntarily but it ends up being the same thing, control by the UN.

              Whether it is just a vision of what life could be like if they were allowed to “fix everything” or a grand plan to become the world’s government, the result is the same — loss of individual freedom and servitude to the UN. Even acknowledging that in any society there must be some rules we follow so we don’t walk on the rights of others, we are headed in the wrong direction.

              I do not like the idea of gaming the system. It requires too much energy devoted to maintaining alliances with the right people, an infallible way of remembering what you said to everyone and what they said in return and far too much risk of a serious fall if you don’t kiss the right butt. That is no way to live. I was in a position at one time to see how desperate the White House was to remember what was said to whom and they were not getting their various stories straight, even with the help of computers. I had an inside view because they thought our information technology could solve the problem. But it didn’t.

              There is a lot of incompetence in the UN as in any large organization. It’s bad enough in the governments we have now. And just as we see in America or New Zealand, that incompetence may make the end result worse because things are bungled instead of carried out smoothly.

              BB

              00

              • #
                Bite Back

                What do you know about this UN idea of universal ID for everyone from birth, a universal birth certificate and lifelong ID, possibly an embedded chip?

                I’ve seen something about it and I don’t know how reliable that source is.

                00

  • #
    Graham Richards

    I have a task for Donald Trump when he becomes president………..

    Shut the UN down and as we have such a close relationship Australia can also get out ………….they can move to the EU or better still Syria.

    100

  • #
  • #
    Egor TheOne

    ‘Climate Justice’….The only appropriate ‘climate justice ‘ would be to lock up the instigators and propagators of this medieval CAGW religion .

    The Paris Pre-Enlightenment PitchForker Hajj ,would be a good place to start !

    The New Global Governance Chief Climate Justice Uniform > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straitjacket#mediaviewer/File:Straitjacket-rear.jpg >>
    Chief ‘Climate Justice’the mad malthusian Ehrlich’s new look ….!

    30

  • #
    toorightmate

    Roll up! Roll up!
    Roll up to the Paris Climate Carnival.

    I am getting sooooo excited.

    30

  • #
    Ross

    So if this Court was in place what would they do if this evidence was put in front of them ?? Run for the hills might be one answer.

    http://realclimatescience.com/2015/11/the-other-half-of-the-big-antarctica-lie/#comment-4580

    40

  • #
    handjive

    NATIONS AND PEOPLES SHOULD FEAR THE PARIS COUP
    Exclusive: Lord Monckton exposes U.N. ‘agreement’ to establish world government

    Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/11/nations-and-peoples-should-fear-the-paris-coup/#wIeCYs3IX7oaoxcM.99

    130

    • #
      Egor TheOne

      Great article you found by Monckton as usual .

      One of the very few that uncovers the sleazy objectives of this Totalitarians Shindig ….this CAGW mental illness…..just part of the Grand Fiasco …..the Unelected Nutters (U.N.) in charge of everything , every detail of our lives !

      I thought all this BS was put to the Sword at the conclusion of World War 2…..but , here we are again …..our freedoms are being syphoned away by our POS politicians !

      70

    • #
      Ross

      From your link handjive. LM at his best

      “Mr. Obama, with his scientifically illiterate and viscerally anti-American administration, will stand alongside the Third World as it uses the climate treaty to knife the West. So will the vapid Trudeau Jr. in Canada, the profiteering Turbull in Australia, and of course all the countries of the dismal European tyranny-by-clerk, which has already succeeded in taking away democracy from all its satrapy states, including Britain. The U.N. wants globally the power the E.U. wields regionally ..”

      90

  • #

    The UN has metasticized from a useless international peacekeeper into a giant wealth redistribution scam whose sole purpose is to take money from developed countries and give it to less fortunate countries.

    Again, as always: “Get the US out of the UN, and the UN out of the US”.

    60

  • #
    Egor TheOne

    The U.N……. Unelected Nutters , needs to be abolished !

    Its just a bloated and useless bunch of unelected delusionists and NWO wannabes !

    I don’t remember voting for any self proclaimed world climate authority ,the IPCC , or any other part of the United Totalitarians .

    https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-AXhzg12yOI8/VIP_CPD2B9I/AAAAAAAAgac/c9dcHdYUnGU/w907-h587-no/endenhofer.png

    50

  • #
    Andrew Richards

    I’m happy to be labelled a conspiracy theorist because that is exactly what this is: a conspiracy among global elite sociopaths to establish a world dictatorship. These sociopaths seek a reduction in the world’s population to around 200M people. Agenda 21. It is there for all to read. What we are seeing in the middle east, Europe and elsewhere is part of this transition to global dictatorship by fomenting war and ethnic/ religious divisions.

    80

  • #
    David Maddison

    Europe (and much of the rest of the West) is under a long-planned invasion now with a corresponding dimmunition of sovereignty. That and climate change are an intertwined pair of strategies to bring about the destruction of Western Civilisation and a dictatorial One World Parliament.

    There are some utterly evil and monsterous individuals running our world right now.

    130

  • #
    TdeF

    The whole thing reminds me of a Blackadder episode where the feared mad Scotsman McAngus was accidentally killed on cannon inspection, presumably sticking his head in a cannon to inspect it. What real country would be persuaded to sign up to such a self destructive concept? What effective persuasion is used to get domestic politicans to agree? Is there a life after politics in the UN? Ask NZ Ex PM Helen Clarke about her carbon tax, the one which preceded Ex PM Julia Gillard’s carbon tax.

    So what does the UN do with its $5.4Billion ($2.7Billion a year)? How and why has its income increased at 16% pa since 2001, twice the rate of growth of China.

    “The total population of the staff of the Secretariat as at 30 June 2014 was 41,426, comprising all categories of staff holding permanent/continuing, fixed -term and temporary contracts, recruited both internationally and locally. The “all staff” population includes staff members from 188 Member States. There are 6,389 staff members at the UNHQ in New York, 3,223 in Geneva, and 1,711 in Nairobi.”

    Then there is peacekeeping

    “The UN’s peacekeeping budget currently finances 15 peacekeeping missions with more than 120,000 military, police, and civilian personnel deployed in conflict zones throughout the world. The UN funds its peacekeeping budget with assessments on member states similar to those made for the regular budget, but with greater discounts for poorer nations. The resulting funding deficit is compensated for by the 5 permanent members (P5) of the Security Council—the U.S., United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China. Under this formula, the U.S. is assessed 27% of the UN’s peacekeeping budget, though an outdated and arbitrary Congressional mandate caps U.S. expenditures for peacekeeping at 25%.”

    This is a huge and rapidly growing organization which seems to operate well under of the radar of most voters. Climate Change is a new business direction and looking to be a nice little earner and wealth redirector. Not as nasty as peace keeping though and after all, nothing is really wrong anyway, so it is harmless.

    80

    • #
      TdeF

      Just reading the quote, it is quite disparaging from http://www.betterworldcampaign.org

      “though an outdated and arbitrary Congressional mandate caps U.S. expenditures for peacekeeping at 25%”. Given the US has only 1/20th of the world’s population, the cap seems very reasonable. Clearly the US also subsidizes the peace keeping missions heavily, especially to those third world countries which do not contribute. How much longer will the US public continue to pay for everyone else’s problems?

      The Better World Campaign:
      “Launched in 1999, the Better World Campaign is a project of the Better World Fund, created with support from entrepreneur and philanthropist Ted Turner as part of his historic $1 billion gift in 1998 to support UN causes. The UN Foundation is our sister organization.”

      So on top of the huge UN organization itself with 12,000 people and 5x as many in individual countries, you have these parallel groups. A very few sceptics have little hope against such huge organizations, except the one weapon, the truth and this through a very few blogs like Jo’s. No wonder countries and Labor/Green political organizations want to control the internet, as through an NBN.

      60

  • #
    pat

    this is all over the same MSM that keeps telling us China is now a leader on “climate action”!
    why do I see instead a massive increase in CO2 emissions?
    of course, China will not be taken to court:

    3 Nov: Reuters: China’s Xi says annual growth of about 7 percent possible over next five years
    Annual average growth would be no less than 6.5 percent in the next five years to realize the country’s goal of doubling 2010 gross domestic product (GDP) and per capita income by 2020, Xinhua quoted Xi as saying…
    Premier Li Keqiang has said that China needs annual growth of at least 6.53 percent over the next five years. He was quoted by state radio as saying on Tuesday that environmental protection measures had contributed to the growth slowdown…
    (Reporting by Beijing Monitoring Desk and Kevin Yao)
    http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/11/03/uk-china-economy-gdp-idUKKCN0SS0PQ20151103

    40

  • #
    K evin Hearle

    Good paper on this topic is at Judith Curry Climate etc. Adjudicating scientific disputes in Climate science. The 29 page paper is well worth a read

    20

  • #
    Sarah Bath

    Our branch has been arguing for this for years. We are finally getting traction.

    “Our branch”? – -Jo

    15

  • #
    PeterS

    Countries like Russia and China will never abide by this UN crap. They would rather go to war to defend their sovereignties if pushed too hard too soon. Instead they probably prefer the UN to continue to act slowly in the hope the West continues to fall for this nonsense and is weakened to the point they can be taken over. I bet that’s one of their many strategies to take over the world. Perhaps that’s the real agenda for socialists organizations like the ALP and the Greens, but I don’t think they are that clever.

    50

    • #
      Alle Auverte

      Lefty idealists may be daft but they’re nothing if not useful tools


      the Bolsheviks realized that they could not maintain power in an election-based system without sharing power with other parties and compromising their principles.


      What Secretary Figueres keeps alluding to with references to China “having it right”.


      As a result, they formally abandoned the democratic process in January 1918 and declared themselves the representatives of a dictatorship of the proletariat.”

      The UNFCCC are still toying with how to sieze power having tried & failed by various methods of stealth already. If they don’t get their way this time will their Masters lose patience & try to up the ante ?

      In response, the Russian Civil War broke out in the summer of that year [1918] and would last well into 1920.

      It could all be over by 2020.

      http://m.sparknotes.com/history/european/russianrev/summary.html

      30

  • #
    Bulldust

    O/Topic – shock, horror! Climate change (warming) may lead to decreased borth rates:

    https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/29987050/not-tonight-dear-it-s-28c/

    This puts the Greens in a tricky position … they’d like to see the population a lot lower for the “carrying capacity of the earth”, so is warming good or bad?

    The paper is probably another example of staring too long at data to find “significant” statistics to weave a global warming scare around… Briggs would have a field day, no doubt.

    50

  • #
    Fang

    We “Could” be the Children of the revolution?

    11

  • #
    RoHa

    Can I get a job on this tribunal?

    11

  • #
    Alan

    Slightly off topic but look what the ABC has let slip through . It was actually on the side bar of the news home page yesterday but not for long.Especially love the introduction to the U of Tas academic

    MATT KING: Professor of Polar Geodesy at the University of Tasmania.

    WILL OCKENDEN: Professor of what?

    20

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      The media always imply that glaciers melt because of warming. But the science shows that it is tidal motion under the glacial ice sheet that makes them appear to be shrinking, when viewed from above.

      10

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    Heh, nice.

    When that rascal Lord Deben was menacing Jo on TV a few weeks ago he was quick to provide China with the defense that “we” the Developed had exported our emissions to China by expecting China to manufacture everybody’s goods. So China isn’t to be blamed for their CO2 emissions when it’s mainly other people who benefit from those CO2 emissions. It’s like he was implying that emitting CO2 isn’t the bad part, it’s benefiting from CO2 that’s the bad part.

    Now here’s the UN admitting developing countries can emit CO2 and benefit from that CO2 emitting process and they STILL aren’t to be blamed.

    Option 3:
    …bearing in mind that peaking will vary for different countries and will be longer for developing countries…

    Surely the corals will be bleached, the fish will lose their hearing, the seas will rise, the polar bears will fry, and the world will end from CO2 emissions regardless of who benefits along the way? Nature doesn’t care who made money from CO2, nature just absorbs the CO2 and reacts. So what is all this talk about leniency for developing countries when that makes no difference to the environment? It’s as though this centralised energy rationing isn’t really about the environment.

    Why do the developing countries need leniency if solar power and wind power can deliver “clean energy” for “clean development” reliably? Could that be because… they can’t deliver? Has the UN changed its tune on permitting World Bank loans to developing countries to build coal-fired power stations? If not, then how will there be any “social and economic development and poverty eradication” in these Developing countries? Oh that’s right, natural gas will be used. So it’s okay to burn natural gas, and emit CO2, and benefit from doing so, as long as you’re a “developing country”.

    Presumably the taboo against coal is supposed to be universal, so the exemptions are primarily for poorer countries. The poorer countries will be permitted exemptions to get technology that works, while everyone else has to somehow scale up solar and wind that are unreliable and expensive. That means the UN decides who gets cheap power and who doesn’t, on the basis of UN-assessed wealth. But the power generates wealth. That means the UN decides how much prosperity is enough. Everybody got that?

    It’s no wonder ex-PM Rudd called climate change “the greatest moral challenge of our time”. Is it okay to benefit from fossil fuels or not? There seems to be different rules for different countries. We are all told drastic cuts to emissions are urgently needed for the sake of future generations… but then told “peaking will vary for different countries and will be longer for developing countries”. But if it’s okay for developing countries to benefit from fossil fuels then it’s okay for everyone to benefit from fossil fuels.

    101

    • #
      David Maddison

      Excellent post Andrew. Yes, there is a direct correlation between the ability to generate cheap power and national wealth. So, as you say, by forcing rich countries to use expensive power and allowing poor countries to use cheap fossil power there will be a massive redistribution of wealth.

      Naturally, this is all part of the plan because as IPCC Edenhoffer said:

      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.

      Of course, the poor countries will ultimately remain poor because they are poor for a reason such as dysfunctional societies and cultures but that is another story.

      20

  • #

    So where are we in the ancient Fire and Ice Theory? Nearing roo .2……
    http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/11/2/experts-dispute-nasa-antarctic-ice-gain-study.html
    …………………………
    265. The determination of the degree of necessity is a quality of the leader. One should know how to make a mosaic of successive order out of many simultaneous considerations. Neither logic, nor reason, nor formulas but the fire of the heart lights the path of such a train of actions. One should realize with full heart where the passageway is adequate so as not to jostle a neighbor. The heart will indicate when not to overdo as regards pressure. Such testings of strength are known as the wings of justice. -Morya: Fiery World 1934

    10

    • #
      el gordo

      “But this is also bad news,” he said. “If the 0.27 mm per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”

      Thermal expansion?

      20

  • #
    Ruairi

    It seems U.N. leaders can’t wait,
    To seal our political fate,
    To gain worldwide control,
    Through a climate-change goal,
    And dismantle the sovereign state.

    160

  • #
    pat

    as some have brought up the CSIRO survey which is invalid from the get-go because all the questions are about CLIMATE CHANGE which 100% should have said they believe in (or, better still, that they know has always happened), just want to say.

    the survey is merely a collation of the previous Attitudes surveys, which CSIRO stopped doing once Aussies looked too sceptical. jo had a thread on this some time ago.

    love the politics on display in this blog:

    3 Nov: CSIRO Blog: Chris McKay: What’s with our attitude? Australians and climate change
    ***PHOTO CAPTION: A climate rally in Melbourne.
    “There’s a bad flu going around this year… but I’m healthy enough to not have to worry.”
    “Speed is the biggest contributor to fatal road accidents… but I’m a good driver and can handle the conditions.”
    “Yes, climate change is happening… but it won’t affect me.”
    Sound familiar? These statements are what’s known as an ‘optimism bias’ – a cognitive bias that causes people to believe that they are at less risk of experiencing a negative event compared to others.
    Optimism bias can apply to any number of situations, and is a common feature of many public surveys…
    This has been a common theme from respondents since we started our annual Climate Attitude Surveys in 2010. We’ve just released the major findings from the final survey, providing the most comprehensive long-term view of Australian attitudes to climate change – ever. The surveys took in the views of 17,493 Australians in relation to climate change, and form one of the few studies globally that have tracked the responses of the same sample of people over a period of time. And the
    optimism bias has been a common theme throughout…
    Beginning in 2010, and conducted every July and August to 2014, a total of 17,493 Australians were surveyed; 4,999 of whom completed two or more surveys, and 269 of whom completed all five.
    “Our goal was to understand the prevalence of different responses Australians have to climate change, including perceptions and opinions about its causes, and personal and social attitudes directly and indirectly related to climate change,” said (lead researcher, Dr Zoe Leviston)…
    ***There remains strong support for the uptake of a wide range of initiatives, such as increased investment in renewable energy, to both mitigate and adapt to the potential impacts of climate change…
    ***“Many people continue to believe that the responsibility for climate change resides with big-polluting countries, multi-national corporations and wealthy countries, even if they don’t think climate change is happening,” Zoe said…
    https://blog.csiro.au/whats-with-our-attitude-australians-and-climate-change/

    from page 18/81 of the report below, the “responsibility” line continues with: “These three groups, with the addition of the Government, were also seen as most responsible for responding to it.
    Individuals were rated as the least responsible for both causing climate change and responding to it.”

    3 Nov: CSIRO: Australian attitudes to climate change and adaptation: 2010-2014
    Author: Leviston, Zoe; Greenhill, Murni; Walker, Iain
    ***LINK to “published version”
    https://publications.csiro.au/rpr/pub?list=SEA&pid=csiro:EP158008

    30

  • #
    Rico L

    Is there an option to leave the UN?

    60

    • #
      Owen Morgan

      I don’t see why not. Switzerland has never been a member (despite the fact that the UN set up several of its shops in Geneva, Switzerland’s French-speaking, watch-making bit). There is no requirement for any country which is currently in the UN to remain so.

      00

  • #
    Owen Morgan

    “The possibility of an International Tribunal of Climate Justice has been criticised in the U.S., where some commentators have argued that it will lead to developing nations dragging President Obama into court and bypassing Congress.”

    I rather gather (from a trans-Atlantic prespective) that quite a lot of people in the United States have been hoping for someone to bypass the supine Congress and drag Obama into a courtroom. Obama himself, however, knows very well that the likes of an “International Tribunal of Climate Justice” would never, ever come for a true-believer like him. He probably expects to be the first Chief Justice.

    Just imagine how the UN would endlessly re-define the nonsensical term “climate justice” and how the “International Tribunal” would find work for itself.

    40

  • #
  • #
    pat

    is ABC overdoing it???

    4 Nov: ABC Radio National: AM
    (TOP STORY) Concern over secrecy surrounding carbon project auction process
    The second round of funds available under the Government’s Direct Action climate scheme goes under the hammer today…
    (TRANSCRIPT)
    IAIN MACGILL, director of the University of New South Wales’ Centre for Energy and Environmental Markets: It’s very problematic with the ERF in that its transparency really is very low. That means – is it working or not? Hard to say, and that’s a real problem.
    SARA PHILLIPS: He says taxpayers could wind up footing the bill for projects that a company was going to do anyway, a challenge known as “additionality”.
    IAIN MACGILL: If we look at similar sorts of mechanisms that have been implemented elsewhere in the world – and one is the clean development mechanism under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change – they have often had additional additionality tests around financial additionality, really trying to make a very strong case that the funds, taxpayers’ funds, are actually going to fund things that wouldn’t happen otherwise, rather than just representing a nice windfall for a company that’s doing something it was probably going to do anyway…

    (FOLLOWED BY) Paris 2015 UN climate summit to put Australia under pressure on targets and coal, expert says
    Climate change will dominate global politics in the lead up to the United Nations summit in Paris next month…
    (TRANSCRIPT)
    MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: Fergus Green is a researcher and climate policy consultant at the London School of Economics and Political Science.
    He’s in Australia to speak at a climate change forum being held by the Committee for Economic Development today.
    Until last month he was also the policy analyst and research adviser to Professor Nicholas Stern at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment….
    MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: So you point to China, and many do, but the fact is that they’re still building a new coal fired power plant every couple of weeks, aren’t they?
    FERGUS GREEN: So they’re building these coal fired power plants but they’re not being used, and the Chinese leadership recognises that that needs to change because they’re wasting a lot of capital, a lot of money, in building these coal plants…

    (FOLLOWED BY) CSIRO: 78 per cent of Australians believe in climate change
    A five year longitudinal study of Australians views on climate change has found 78 per cent it is happening, but significantly more Labor voters than Liberal attribute it to human activity…
    FRANCIS KEANY: What about people’s political leanings?
    ZOE LEVISTON: Again, if you look at it in isolation, you can see that there are patterns between people’s political orientation – even patterns in who people vote for and how they respond to climate change.
    But if you look at things like deep seated world views, again, that human-nature interaction, that accounts for that variability we see in those more surface order things like political orientation…
    http://www.abc.net.au/am/

    such a diversity of opinion!

    30

    • #

      pat mentions this (my bolding here)

      FERGUS GREEN: So they’re building these coal fired power plants but they’re not being used, and the Chinese leadership recognises that that needs to change because they’re wasting a lot of capital, a lot of money, in building these coal plants…

      Really!!!!!

      Some people will just say anything, even outright lie$, which is all this is, and I hope that word gets through moderation.

      This power is ….. NOT being used!!!!!

      Is this guy serious?

      Just how hard is this to track down?

      China Power Indicators (and keep in mind this is only eight weeks old, and is the running total for just the eight Months so far this year)

      Note line 1 – Total power generation

      Note line 9 – Total power consumption

      Totals within 1.1% of each other, which is even tighter than for most already Developed Countries, and this is not power ….. NOT being used, but for the average difference, mostly from the normal Power Factor ratio.

      Now note line 44, and this NEW thermal power coal fired power plants constructed since January (so, this is just 8 months worth of new coal fired power plants) Now, that figure is Nameplate, so that’s 31GW of NEW coal fired Nameplate, (the equivalent of a new 2 unit 2000MW+ plant every 2 weeks) and a probable generation of 240TWH, which is around 7.5% of the total power generation.

      7.5% new power from plants that this person says are NOT being used.

      What an outright li@r.

      Tony.

      150

      • #

        Man, working with Chinese characters and then finding translations is not an easy process.

        I saw an anomaly that a smart ar$ed greenie commentator might have latched onto with my earlier Comment ….. “Yeah! compared to what? They could still be closed down, because you didn’t give a comparison.”

        Okay then, I now have next Months data and keep in mind that this is only a lead time of four weeks for all the electrical data, and even the U.S. EIA data has only just changed from three months to 2 Months, so the Chinese are faster even than the Americans.

        China Power Indicators (and this is for September, one Month later than the earlier comment’s link, so barely 4 weeks old now)

        Now, note Line 1 again, and this (when compared to the earlier Months total) shows an increase of around 480TWH, and hey that’s almost 2.5 times Australia’s total power consumption, and this increase is just in the last ….. MONTH.

        Now, scroll down to line 44, new Thermal Power in other words all of it coal fired power. That shows an increase of around 8800MW, in other words FOUR x 2200MW new large scale coal fired power plants, all now on line and delivering power into the Chinese grids.

        It was a lot of work to find this new data, and to then try and trace it back to its origin, so I can always access each new Month.

        Be aware that whenever you hear some, umm greenie advocate try and tell you that China is easing back on construction of new coal fired power, then I now have the data to shred them.

        That new coal fired power is the equivalent of Loy Yang, Bayswater and Eraring here in Australia, and that’s just in the last Month.

        Some greenie supporters will say absolutely anything in their desperation to make people think like them.

        Luckily, I can just laugh out loud in their faces.

        The more I do, the more I find, all of it ammunition.

        Tony.

        90

      • #
        toorightmate

        Tony,
        The Chinese are very smart folk.
        They know immediately when the put on the TV or the light or the kettle, whether the power is coming from coal or hydro (a la 3 Gorges Dam).

        Now how smart is that?

        20

        • #

          And so much for the Chinese being secretive.

          And just a wry comment here.

          Keep in mind this is data for only 9 Months, so extrapolating it out for the whole year (a forward projection here)

          Look at China’s hydro power delivery. (Line 5) That will be the equivalent of 5 times Australia’s total power generation from EVERY source.

          And the total for Thermal power, 97.5% of it being NEW coal fired technology power, well that’s 2.8% more generation from that than what the whole U.S. generates from EVERY source, and China is barely half way there yet.

          You won’t here that coming out of Paris!

          Tony.

          50

          • #
            Andrew McRae

            Hey Tony, did you see this already?
            http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-03/energy-network-change-could-revolutionise-power-transmission/6907494

            “A tri-generation plant creates power by using a gas-fired engine to simultaneously put out low-carbon electricity,”

            Low-carbon propane! Just what a city needs when watching its waste-line.

            “For years the city has been pushing for a system that makes it easier for residents and businesses to access clean power that is generated and used locally”

            Yes, the future of “clean power” in “clean liveable cities” is a gas-burning power station on the corner of every office block! That will put the engine design and smokestack scrubbers to the test.

            There’s other questionable statements in that piece, would be interested in your reaction to it, maybe on the weekend.

            20

  • #
    pat

    ABC/Fairfax – CAGW is all smoke and mirrors, didn’t u know?

    3 Nov: Nasdaq: Lynn Cook: Canadian Crude Still Flows to U.S. Despite Keystone Pipeline Delay–Update
    (Alison Sider and David George-Cosh contributed to this article)
    TransCanada Corp.’s move to postpone the Keystone XL pipeline won’t have much effect on the U.S. energy industry, experts say, largely because American refiners have found other ways to get crude oil from Canada.
    Oil imports from Canada set a record in August, averaging 3.4 million barrels a day, according to data released Monday by the U.S. Energy Department.
    In fact, the U.S. has bought 64% more Canadian crude so far this year than it did in the same stretch of 2008, the year TransCanada first asked the U.S. government for permission to build the pipeline that would run from Alberta to Texas. That is an extra 1.2 million barrels of oil flowing into the U.S. from Canada every day, or 45% more crude than Keystone XL would have carried had it been constructed…
    Trains now carry a lot of oil, including tens of thousands of barrels a day from Canada. Close to 1 million barrels of oil a day moves across the U.S. on oil trains, which act as rolling pipelines that can carry up to 80,000 barrels of crude. More than 10% of all oil hauled by railroads originates in Canada…
    TransCanada’s chief executive, Russ Girling, said Tuesday that in the long term oil producers still want to ship crude on Keystone XL, which would be safer and cheaper than using oil trains…
    http://www.nasdaq.com/article/canadian-crude-still-flows-to-us-despite-keystone-pipeline-delayupdate-20151103-01178

    30

    • #
      Bill

      Transcanada Pipelines asked the US State Department to put the application on hold pending the court case in Nebraska. Obama says no, he’s going to decide eventually regardless of the facts.

      00

  • #
    pat

    ABC/Fairfax – CAGW is all smoke and mirrors, didn’t u know?

    2 Nov: The Province: Tom Harris and Tim Ball: Patricia was nowhere near the worst tropical storm
    Patricia’s supposed 320 km/h wind speed over the ocean was not actually measured. It was merely predicted by computer models based on the measured speeds thousands of feet above the surface. The evidence that it was exaggerated is the rapidity with which the winds supposedly diminished after the storm reached land, where it could be measured… READ ALL
    http://blogs.theprovince.com/2015/11/02/tom-harris-and-tim-ball-patricia-was-nowhere-near-the-worst-tropical-storm/

    20

  • #
    ROM

    Now I know full well that this below will / might never happen although nothing can ever be ruled out if we want to look at past history
    —————-
    We in the “developed” countries could always add up and send the bill for the technological, medical and social advances made by the” developed” countries over the last three hundred years, advances which the undeveloped countries have been given and have taken up without ever having to do any serious development work or expended anything much in the way of blood, sweat, treasure and tears themselves.

    Technological advances such as making steel and the smelting and fabricating of all metals on an industrial scale, not the village workshop scale so many undeveloped nations have only just moved on from.
    We could charge vast amounts of wealth for the undeveloped countries to access the immense global communications systems that have been both invented, developed and built for all global country’s use by the developed countries.

    No pay- No access to satellites or the word wide net of fibre optic cables that give global communications the speeds and capacities they do.

    We could even charge for the use of the old copper wire networks which were developed entirely in the western developed countries as well as for access to the huge global communication centers and etc of the developed world.
    We could charge for the use of western developed country’s inventions such as trains, cars, trucks, roads, pipe lines, coal fired power generating inventions and developments over the last three hundred years.
    The development of oil and gas wells and the technologies that extract oil and gas which are then turned into useable energy forms in developed world’s great oil refineries.
    Then there are the inventing of and the development of Oil, petrol diesel, gas using engines and generating plants plus hydro power generating technologies all of which technologies were both developed and learnt how to be best utilised by the developed world and are now an essential and even critical sources of energy to the undeveloped countries but which were totally invented and developed in the western developed countries.

    We could charge for the immense array of Western developed country’s medical research and the creation of the vaccines and medical knowledge and disease controls that are now spreading rapidly into all the so called undeveloped countries.

    I know well that Free Trade benefits everybody but if the undeveloped countries want to deliberately hobble the developed countries by sucking them dry of the wealth the peoples of those developed countries have created for themselves then we in the developed countries have nothing to lose by imposing very heavy tariffs on everything that is attempted to be exported from the undeveloped countries into the developed countries.

    We simply create a free trade grouping out of all the developed countries that are in the sights of the developed countries as apparent criminals for creating the very items the undeveloped countries are demanding they have complete and open access to themselves.
    Any undeveloped country that demands payment of billions of dollars of so called compensation simply has enormous tariffs placed on any of its exports to the grouping of developed countries.

    The pain would be severe for all concerned but I suggest it would only take weeks for a back down by most undeveloped countries as they see their now open access to developed world technology and access to the “rich” well paying developed world markets come to a rapid halt.

    We don’t even need to pass over the billions of dollar a year demanded by the undeveloped countries.

    We simply sit down and add up all the last 300 years of invention and development of an immense array of technologies and wealth creating social structures that the undeveloped countries have received and still are receiving from the developed world for almost no expenditure of wealth, sweat, blood and tears themselves.

    Sweat, tears, blood and treasure that our peoples of a dozen generations past in the developed world had to go through to create these very technologies, the medicines, communications, energy producing technologies and etc that we in the developed world have had to go through to create the living standards we now have and which the undeveloped countries are demanding for themselves for no cost but still are seemingly intent on destroying the very source of their own advancement that originates in and from the developed countries.

    We simply add all of that immense array of three hundred years of human advancement in every field and which the undeveloped world currently has open access to and subtract it from the sum that the undeveloped countries are demanding.

    And then we send them the bill for the rest of what they owe the developed world today.

    We can go a lot further and calculate the benefits that the undeveloped world will receive over the next century or so from these inventions and technological advances that the developed world has made and which the undeveloped world is now grabbing with great gusto.
    I’m sure a few western climate modellers could be rounded up to suitably “adjust” the “data” to make sure that the undeveloped world is likely to stay that way unless they pay.

    Use of those climate modellers shouldn’t be problem for the undeveloped world as it is the output from those same climate modellers, the identical climate model outputs they are now using as a political and a thoroughly corrupted moralistic base to try and impose their own version of a treasure grabbing massive fine on the developed world for inventing and creating the very social structures and technologies that are so spectacularly increasing living standards around the world today and which they themselves, the so called undeveloped world is now demanding as their right also but without expending any real effort on the scale the developed world had to, themselves.

    The politicians and activists of the undeveloped world should be very careful what they wish for.

    They might just get it but it won’t be what they thought they were getting!

    140

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      I only got to the second para and I liked it.

      We need to look into this seriously.

      KK

      50

    • #

      “Now I know full well that this below will / might never happen although nothing can ever be ruled out if we want to look at past history”
      ———————————–
      “We in the “developed” countries could always add up and send the bill for the technological, medical and social advances made by the” developed” countries over the last three hundred years, advances which the undeveloped countries have been given and have taken up without ever having to do any serious development work or expended anything much in the way of blood, sweat, treasure and tears themselves.”

      I fully concur with both paragraphs! And with KK that the implications are vast. AFAIK all that need be done by the developed countries is to disable ALL of the UN functions toward world control by the UN, This can be done by unilaterally stopping payments by each developed country to the UN and revoking any international travel by UN personnel. i.e cutoff the gravy train that is seriously hobbling any original intent of the establishment of the UN in the first place! Just what can the UN ever do against that? Sue some one, or country?
      Think about it! We are nations of folk that have been b-washed into accepting self appointed authority! The problem then still remains with the folk. The masses that wish to be told what to do,simply because, when it all hits the fan, we can blame them, not ourselves. Have none of us any personal integrity/dignity left?
      All the best! -will-

      110

  • #
    pat

    not quite running and cycling, but close enough for a CAGW stunt:

    3 Nov: ClimateChangeNews: Megan Darby: Meet the climate scientists running and cycling to Paris
    Daniel Price and Erlend Knudsen are travelling from the ends of the Earth to spread awareness of climate change ahead of critical COP21 summit
    These two polar researchers have swapped physical science for physical exertion, on a mission to spread awareness of climate change…
    He hasn’t quite cycled the whole way. Rather than skid across the McMurdo ice shelf where he did his fieldwork, Price pedalled off from New Zealand in April.
    Russia would only grant a transit visa, allowing enough time to catch the Trans-Siberian Express but not to make it across under his own steam.
    And the UNDP collaboration involved some travel back and forth. The pair promised to offset the emissions of unavoidable flights using myclimate…
    http://www.climatechangenews.com/2015/11/03/meet-the-climate-scientists-running-and-cycling-to-paris/

    30

  • #
    Geoff Sherrington

    Jo and others who might not have seen this -
    Relatedly Must Read at Bishop Hill
    Who,s behind the RICO push?

    40

  • #
    PeterPetrum

    I have just sent my MP, Louise Marcus, a copy of the Article 11 text that you inserted above and told her that if Turnbull dares sign off on this the Liberal Party is doomed!

    I expect the normal auto response and nothing else that I always get from my MP. Wish the ALA had a candidate in my electorate, just so I could have somebody else to vote for.

    70

  • #
    pat

    2 Nov: UK Express: Jon Austin: What global warming? Antarctic ice is INCREASING by 135billion tonnes a year, says NASA
    A NEW Nasa study of the Antarctic from space has thrown the case for climate change into disarray after finding that more NEW new ice has formed at the Antarctic than has been lost to its thinning glaciers.
    Global warming theories have been thrown into doubt after Nasa also claimed current horror predictions into future sea-level rises may not be as severe.
    Major studies previously made the case for global warming being a man-made problem, including the the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which said that Antarctica was overall losing land ice…
    Jay Zwally, a glaciologist with Nasa Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, lead author of the study, which was published in the Journal of Glaciology: “The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimetres per year away.”….
    http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/616356/What-global-warming-Nasa-Antarctic-ice-INCREASING-135BILLION-TONNES-year

    the twists and turns of ABC reporting the same study:

    2 Nov: ABC PM: Antarctic ice sheet growing, according to NASA
    TIM PALMER: The conclusions challenge other reports on Antarctic land ice, such as one from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change…
    WILL OCKENDEN: He (Zwally) says, while large parts of Antarctica are indeed losing ice – like west Antarctica, near the coast, and the Antartic peninsula, if you look at the continent as a whole, it’s a different story…
    It’s that small centimetre addition across a large area that Jay Zwally says makes all the difference…
    He also expects the interior of Antarctica to continue to thicken in the coming two or three decades.
    But he says eventually the losses from the coast will overtake the thickening in the middle…
    WILL OCKENDEN: Are you concerned that this study and its conclusions will give credence to the theories that question global warming or climate change?
    JAY ZWALLY: I am concerned that people will use it for that purpose, but they should not, because climate is definitely warming globally, particularly in the Arctic.
    WILL OCKENDEN: As the study effectively challenges what was previously thought, the results have intrigued researchers.
    MATT KING, Professor of Polar Geodesy at the University of Tasmania: The present study really does fly in the face of a fairly strong consensus in the international community that Antarctica is actually contributing to sea level.
    WILL OCKENDEN: Though didn’t the IPCC in 2013 put part of that sea level rise to melting glaciers in Antarctica?
    MATT KING: Yeah, so there’s two ways that you can come at the sea level problem. There’s, the first way is that you can just measure the sea levels rising, and that’s the very robust estimate, the best-observed climate records have in fact; and then there’s the other way you can come about it, is you can work out, well, what do you think is changing over the land and hence ending up in the ocean.
    So this just really comes to the question of how well can we explain the observed sea level rise, rather than how fast the sea level’s rising.
    WILL OCKENDEN: He says more studies are needed…
    http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2015/s4343889.htm

    30

  • #
    handjive

    SMH, 04 Nov, 2015: Five of the most common questions about climate change

    Every year, the independent non-profit organisation the Climate Council fields questions from everyday Australians about the whys and
    wherefores of climate change.

    These are the top five questions they are asked, and the responses they give:
    . . .
    Too much fun to be had looking at all 5.

    Q #5. Where should I retire to?

    I suggest back to the parallel universe where the climate never changed before global warming, and ‘action on carbon(sic)’ was unnecessary:

    Study may have found evidence of alternate, parallel universes

    30

  • #
    pat

    how low can Newsweek go?
    this is what happens when you believe in an 0.27 millimetre per year sea level rise, I guess:

    2 Nov: Newsweek: Zoe Schlanger: Antarctica Is Gaining Ice. Here’s Why That’s Not Actually Good News
    But right now, the IPCC, the climate change body of the United Nations, attributes a portion of sea level rise specifically to ice loss on the continent.
    “The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said. “But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”
    In other words, the scientific community now has a mystery on their hands. Where is that .27 millimeters of annual rise coming from?
    http://www.newsweek.com/antarctica-gaining-ice-heres-why-thats-not-actually-good-news-389904

    meanwhile, SMH has 568 articles on the Antarctic, but so far I haven’t found the latest good news anywhere on a Fairfax site.

    40

    • #
      Dave N

      ““But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.””

      A true scientist would consider the possibility that the IPCC figures require re-examination.

      60

  • #
    Dean

    Could be a double edged sword.

    A legal battle where billions are at stake might be just the sort of scrutiny best avoided by warmers.

    30

  • #
    pat

    all over the MSM, tho not ABC/Fairfax as yet, as far as I can tell:

    3 Nov: ABC America: AP: Merkel: We Must Hit Climate Target to Avoid Refugee Waves
    German Chancellor Angela Merkel says the world must do everything it can to meet an international goal to fight global warming, arguing that failing to do so could set off large new waves of refugees…
    Merkel said in a speech Tuesday “if we don’t manage this, that could be a reason for many, many refugee movements” around the world…
    http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/merkel-hit-climate-target-avoid-refugee-waves-34932603

    30

  • #
    pat

    methinks Merkel is trying to save Deutsche Bank& the German renewable giants:

    29 Oct: WSJ: Deutsche Bank to Shrink Workforce by 35,000 in Broad Revamp
    Bank reports steep loss for third quarter
    By Jenny Strasburg and Madeleine Nissen
    The biggest lender in Europe’s most powerful economy will cut 35,000 jobs from its payroll and make a raft of other changes to fix a bank its new co-Chief Executive John Cryan described as saddled with broken technology and “poor historic behavior.”
    Like other European banks, Deutsche Bank is facing headwinds on several fronts, as profitability is hit by tougher regulations and capital requirements, volatile market conditions and stiffer competition from global rivals, particularly U.S. banks…
    “It’s clear that the Europeans have much more significant restructuring ahead of them,” said Nomura banking analyst Jon Peace. “It’s been more difficult to be super-efficient in Europe.”…
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/deutsche-bank-posts-6-6-billion-loss-1446104427

    it’s that carbon trading the banks are ultimately depending on, though:

    3 Nov: SouthChinaMorningPost: China’s emissions trading scheme to be a ‘game changer’ … eventually, experts say
    by Keira Lu Huang and He Huifeng
    Michael Tong, head of utilities, renewable and environmental research at Deutsche Bank, said although the renewable energy sector would benefit little in the short term, this would be the price the national economy needed to pay first as the country’s industries were still heavily reliant on coal for power.
    “The very harsh requirements on the carbon side will put a huge burden on the economy,” he said.
    The funds derived from carbon trading would unlikely be used to support renewable energy, Tong added.
    Despite these obstacles, renewable energy has good prospects in the long term as China becomes the largest country in renewable energy development, Tong said. Last year, China built 23 gigawatts of wind power capacity, accounting for roughly 40 per cent of all new wind power capacity worldwide…
    http://www.scmp.com/news/china/economy/article/1875125/chinas-emissions-trading-scheme-be-game-changer-eventually

    20

  • #
    Dave

    .

    Tristan Edis of Climate Spectator at it again

    “people just haven’t thought too deeply about the topic!”
    “they rely more on the media and politicians than on scientific research to form an opinion”
    “Australians happen to rate themselves pretty highly when it comes of matters of atmospheric physics”

    In other words – he’s saying anyone that disagrees with him is clueless!

    Well Tristan – how wrong you are:
    Now resorting to abuse and labeling of anyone who objects to the CULT of CAGW as stupid!

    He finishes with a GEM:

    “all you need is just common sense to evaluate the incoming and outgoing global radiation balance”

    Must have contacted Al Gore, Tim Flannery or David Suzuki for this little saying.

    Anger is building in the CAGW camp very quickly

    40

  • #
    Yonniestone

    NASA suggests an increase in Antarctic ice, I almost spat my coffee out seeing this headline on sky news, must be a glitch in the matrix…..

    40

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Yonnie

      A few posts back somebody quoted mass accumulation on the south pole as being 8 billion tonnes (tons) p.a. and possibly up to 10 billion.

      This translates to a sea level drop (or slow down in S/L rise of about 0.07 mm per year.

      Over 10 years this is 0.7mm and over 100 years 7 mm in total.

      maybe not much but a start.

      KK

      30

    • #

      I actually heard a ‘news’ source the other day proclaiming that more ice in Antarctica is caused by global warming !!!

      Seriously, I wish I had written down the source and the date and time but I was so busy laughing (then borderline crying) that I went to the fridge for a drink instead.

      It’s like the whole planet has turned into a group-think cult similar to that movie Idiocracy, where ideas can only be adopted if they are first accepted by a perceived majority, thus the media has first and last dibs on what the ‘consensus’ is.

      00

  • #
    Greg Cavanagh

    It’s just another power grab; just like Global Warming was a power grab, just like Carbon Credits was a power grab, now it’s Climate Justice.

    It costs them nothing to try, and if they get something out of it, bonus to them. They have nothing to loose except our money.

    40

  • #
    Amber

    The UN has outlived its usefulness if they think countries like China are going to listen to a UN Global Warming Court .
    Dream on Marxists .
    Can’t imagine a bunch of climate cops shaking down countries so a group of fat cats can get fatter . But that is where this is headed .

    20

  • #

    Great write up Jo.

    Thank you for your great work and timeliness.

    It is good to have well researched and reputable material to link to all over the net in order to expose this massive deception for what it is … a world government fascism.

    I’m sure Malcolm Turnbull will have our best interests in mind at Paris 2015 when he sells us all as chattel property to this global technocracy … ‘for the good of the planet’ of course … because we’re just too stupid to individually understand ‘science’ without a ‘consensus’ of yes-men (high priests retaining ‘academic’ tenure … and junkets).

    God help us all.
    I pray for a miracle, because it will take a miracle to stop this beast if you ask me.

    00

  • #

    [...] Jo Nova Article: UN wants an ‘international tribunal of climate justice’ — power to tell democracies what to do… [...]

    00