JoNova

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


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

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



Archives

Ouch! Survey shows 45% of the UK want to pay nothing at all for climate adaption funds.

When asked about paying for developing nations to adapt to climate change, the 1066 British people surveyed said they were willing to give an average of only £27  ($30US)  a year. This is far below the UN gambit that hopes to take as much as $150 per head per year. But even that £27 figure is deceptively high. The real story is that the number was skewed up by a few people who were willing to pay a lot each. Nearly half the crowd didn’t want to give a cent. The median value was a paltry £6 per year.  And this was in a test loaded with nice and authoritative messages about how useful those payments would be. Fully 45% of Brits surveyed did not want to contribute anything at all. (The figure is probably similar in the US, and people wonder why Trump is so popular?)

The question is about the public Willingness to Pay (WTP) and the answer is “negligible”:

Overall, taking all responses together, results show that respondents are willing to pay about £27 per year in income taxes to support adaptation efforts in developing countries. This is equivalent to $29.37, using  purchasing power adjustments (World Bank 2014), significantly less than the back-of-the- envelope $100$150 per capita (based on the World Bank adaptation cost estimates discussed earlier). However, if we take the median WTP of £6 per year as our statistic of choice, with the understanding that support for developing country adaptation would depend on majority (at least 50%) support from the public, then it is clear that public support for developing adaptation is negligible.

The subtext of this survey is the finding that only 43% of UK people surveyed agree with the IPCC. Fifty-seven percent are skeptics. This fits reasonably well with a larger, and more neutral survey in the UK showing that 62% are skeptical of man-made climate change.

UK, Climate poll, belief in man made global warming, Survey, 2015.

Figure 2. Personal belief about climate change (CC) (% respondents who chose statement). Total sample size D 1066.

Apparently the big problem was that 31% of Brits think climate change is mostly natural, which is something the researchers say is “wrong”:

Clearly, much needs to be done to motivate people to lend support to those who  despite contributing relatively little to global carbon emissions – are likely to bear the brunt of climate change impacts. However, regression results on our data suggest that this will be no easy task. Together with ability to pay, WTP appears to be strongly driven by a combination of beliefs and individuals’ perception of their own knowledge levels, rather than actual knowledge of climate change or education levels. In particular, a belief that nature is the main cause of climate change appears to have a strong negative influence on the decision whether to contribute or not.

The researchers don’t know why the skeptics don’t want to pay, and essentially suggest, in the politest possible way, that they might be selfish, uncaring and immoral people. They wonder if skeptics rationalize their scroogelike behaviour by strategically adopting the belief that man-made warming is natural? What petty small minded people those skeptics would be… so unlike the noble researchers who speculate about complex sub-conscious mental defects in people they have no data on:

Interestingly, a belief in nature as the main cause of climate change (31% of the entire sample)
has a strong negative influence on participation overall. Perhaps, this suggests a fatalistic attitude of
those with such beliefs. Or perhaps the causality lies in the opposite direction: those who do not
wish to support adaptation projects for vulnerable others, justify their choices by explaining climate
change as natural phenomenon. This would suggest that, for these respondents, moral responsibility
for others is excused by the presence of some external factor (in this case, nature) over which the
respondent feels they have no control (Eshleman 2014). One might consider this a form of ‘strategic’
fatalism. Whatever the reason for this interesting result, however, the implication is clear: a belief
that climate change is caused by nature allows some people to absolve themselves of responsibility
towards those who will be negatively impacted by climate change.

The researchers do not suggest that skeptics don’t want to pay because they know the models are wrong, the scientists behave badly, and it’s quite likely that the world will cool instead, which rather mucks up those “adaption” plans. I guess they didn’t google “Climate skeptics” for ten minutes before they wrote their paper. (And nor did any of the “peer reviewers”.)

The researchers define “real knowledge” as agreeing with the consensus. How big is that confirmation bias?

In terms of differences in how respondents prefer to contribute, we note that greater real knowledge
relating to climate change (indicated by agreement with the statement ‘Carbon dioxide emissions
are the main cause of climate change’) influences the likelihood of contributing towards the
WAF, whereas this has no influence on likelihood of contributing towards the individual programmes
(compared to not contributing at all).

The WAF, by the way, is the Worldwide Adaption Fund – (a hypothetical entity at this stage, but that may change in a day or two):

Suppose there was a Worldwide Adaptation Fund – an international institution responsible for overseeing the
implementation and management of Adaptation Programmes across the globe. These Adaptation   programmes would be designed to alleviate the negative impacts of climate change on nature and the environment, agriculture, human health and the built environment. Funding for these Adaptation  programmes would come from all individual countries as a percentage of their GDP. This means that everyone would have to pay a little more income tax.

Looks like the skeptics have won one round:

Curiously, the paper starts by telling us that nobody liked the idea of doing much to “adapt” to climate change, except a couple of people called Tol and Pielke, but lately even the IPCC has seen the wisdom of their ideas.

1. Introduction
Until fairly recently, the policy of adaptation to climate change was largely considered ethically suspect, and sidelined in favour of its more noble cousin, mitigation (Pielke et al. 2007; Tol 2005). However, as climate-related risks have become more certain and real, adaptation has gained acceptance as a realistic and  necessary policy alongside mitigation (Pielke et al. 2007) a fact particularly highlighted in the recent IPCC report (IPCC 2014).

The futile, herculean task of mitigation, or controlling the climate by reducing CO2, was much more appealing to big-government lovers, and ahem, so much more “ethical”.  It hit the trifecta, it punished independent companies, and helped dependent ones (renewables). And the trading schemes were a bureaucrats wet-dream, a government controlled market to dish out rewards to patrons and to punish the critics.

ABSTRACT

Climate change adaptation is gaining traction as a necessary policy alongside mitigation, particularly for developing countries, many of which lack the resources to adapt. However, funding for developing country
adaptation remains woefully inadequate. This paper identifies the burden of responsibility that individuals in the UK are willing to incur in support of adaptation projects in developing countries. Results from a  nationally representative survey indicate that UK residents are willing to contribute £27 per year (or a median of £6 per year) towards developing country adaptation (US$30 and $7 using the World Bank’s purchasing power conversion factors). This represents less than one-third of the back-of-the envelope
$100$140 per capita per year that the authors estimate would be needed to raise the $70$100 bn/yr recommended by the World Bank to fund developing country adaptation. Regressions indicate that
willingness to pay is driven mostly by a combination of beliefs and perceptions about one’s own knowledge levels, rather than actual knowledge of climate change. We conclude that, to engage the many different audiences that make up the ‘public’, communication efforts must move beyond the simple provision of information and instead, connect  with people’s existing values and beliefs.

REFERENCE

Are we willing to give what it takes? Willingness to pay for climate change adaptation in developing countries
Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Tanya O’Garra & Susana Mourato, published by Taylor & Francis  DOI: 10.1080/21606544.2015.1100560

 

PS: We can argue the toss over the exact definition of a skeptic and the varying degrees with which they disagree with the consensus, but both Richard Tol and Roger Pielke have DeSmog pages. What more do they need?

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.3/10 (71 votes cast)
Ouch! Survey shows 45% of the UK want to pay nothing at all for climate adaption funds., 9.3 out of 10 based on 71 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/nvdv24t

127 comments to Ouch! Survey shows 45% of the UK want to pay nothing at all for climate adaption funds.

  • #
    Phil R

    Regressions indicate that willingness to pay is driven mostly by a combination of beliefs and perceptions about one’s own knowledge levels, rather than actual knowledge of climate change.

    Good lord, the loonies really are in charge of the bin…er, asylum.

    They blindly and unquestioningly assume that “climate change” is real, mainly human-caused, and will be catastrophic, and then define “real knowledge” as agreeing with their restatement of their study assumptions:

    we note that greater real knowledge relating to climate change indicated by agreement with the statement ‘Carbon dioxide emissions are the main cause of climate change’)…

    342

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      The “wisdom” of the IPCC ( intentional ) chasing shadows reminds me of a dumb mutt discovering its own reflection in a mirror, then barking hysterically at it….

      91

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Steve, the analogy is a very good start, but there is something else the dog isn’t getting which the ipcccc is:

        Money, Control, Fame and Glory.

        KK

        80

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Most Brits over a certain age, will have heard the story, at school, of King Canute (actually Kinge Cnut, of the Engles).

      King Canute thought that, as the ruler of the Engles, he was all powerful, and could even stop the sea tides coming in. To prove it, he had a throne placed on the sea shore, and commanded the tide to do his bidding.

      Of course it did not, and so the King got wet feet, and embarassment, in one version of the story, or got drowned in another version.

      I would bet dollars to donuts that the more mature Brits remember that story, when asked about climate change in a survey like this, and answer accordingly.

      If kings cannot command the weather, what hope is there for bankers and politicians?

      62

      • #
        me@home

        Rereke, as I heard this story, the king was demonstrating that he could NOT control the tides.

        150

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          That’s my understanding as well me.

          A humble man.

          KK :)

          60

          • #
            ROM

            The Viking King;

            Canute (Knud) The Great

            Let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings. For there is none worthy of the name but God, whom heaven, earth and sea obey”.

            So spoke King Canute the Great, the legend says, seated on his throne on the seashore, waves lapping round his feet. Canute had learned that his flattering courtiers claimed he was “So great, he could command the tides of the sea to go back”. Now Canute was not only a religious man, but also a clever politician. He knew his limitations – even if his courtiers did not – so he had his throne carried to the seashore and sat on it as the tide came in, commanding the waves to advance no further. When they didn’t, he had made his point that, though the deeds of kings might appear ‘great’ in the minds of men, they were as nothing in the face of God’s power.

            120

          • #
            AndyG55

            Hey, KK, Are you enjoying the boss’s little light show !

            And now some hail.

            20

            • #
              KinkyKeith

              Andy you should have seen Dudley, they always get it hard.

              We still got one bolt about 400 metres way.

              Makes all your problems and CO2 induced climate change seem small compared to nature .

              KK

              30

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Well I stand corrected; and I thank you all, for pointing out that I wasn’t a particularly attentive student when I was at school.

          However, I think I made my point, none the less.

          70

    • #
      Oswald Thake

      “Together with ability to pay, WTP appears to be strongly driven by a combination of beliefs and individuals’ perception of their own knowledge levels, rather than actual knowledge of climate change or education levels.”
      A priceless sentence! How dare the Greasy Multitude not believe that what we tell them three times is true?

      20

    • #
      Allen Ford

      Forget whether or not the “science” is valid, it’s how the loot will distributed and spent that is of real concern. This recent piece on Quadrant, by Tony Thomas, does not inspire confidence:

      Ever used a dodgy builder? Then thank your lucky stars you’re not a granny cyclone victim in Bangladesh, with people from the government arriving to help. The money to build her a new house is provided by a climate-adaptation fund, but all she gets is a roof and floor but no walls. The structure then begins collapsing within two months.

      More follows!

      00

  • #
    michael hart

    Clearly, much needs to be done to motivate people to lend support to those who  despite contributing relatively little to global carbon emissions – are likely to bear the brunt of climate change impacts.

    As usual, the green neo-imperialists have it back asswards. It is poor people who suffer the most from almost everything. They are using fossil fuels as the best way to make themselves less poor. The greens wish to stop them. The anti-CO2 agenda in Paris will ultimately fail, but has the capacity to cause much unnecessary human hardship.

    372

  • #
    Mardler

    They didn’t ask me!

    Stupid poll setting out to prove UK citizens are warmists only to get a bit of an upset.

    192

    • #
      Gary in Erko

      They asked the wrong question -
      Is the belief in catastrophic climate change man made or natural ?

      80

  • #
    Phil R

    Just curious why I’m in moderation? Don’t think I broke any rules or said anything offensive.

    40

    • #
      el gordo

      Don’t take offense, sometimes words get caught in the spammer for no particular reason. Your words should be liberated shortly, when the mod turns up for work.

      60

  • #
    doubting dave

    Even if i believed in the big green scam (which i don’t ), they would have to go to the back of the queue of all the other professional charity beggars that infest our streets , in youthful gangs , wearing lanyards around their necks every other evening . Talk about charities giving it the hard sell these days , i wouldn’t mind so much if they just stuck a hand out and ask for a fiver , but that’s not enough any more , they now want permanent monthly access to your bank account in order to pay for the flashy suits and fancy live styles of the charities executives . Still i would bet the main charities are secretly seething with jealousy over the green blobs ability to jump the queue and go via the Government and the tax man to raid our wallets ” Que Sera sera ” .

    321

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      What I’ve noticed is that the Elite target middle class women ( who often are mums ) as the main “carrier” of their ideas. You see this with alarming clarity with the Cholesterol myth in full flight….mums, once ocnvinced, are heavily communal, dont want to stand out from the crowd and have heavy sway within their families.

      Convince the mums, and you have skewered a large chunk of society…….

      90

    • #
      ROM

      doubting dave @ #5

      I have a strong feeling that a very big percentage of the populace are starting to have some serious reservations as to just what and who are actually “charitable” organisations or institutions.
      Registered Charitable Institutions and organisations don’t pay any tax in australia or most other western nations of course.

      When greenpeace was slated to have its charitable status removed some time ago, it pulled out all stops to prevent this happening.

      I believe NZ has removed Greenpeace’s tax free status.

      India of course has about shut down the Indian Greenpeace as India’s treasury has calculated Greenpeace and the other marxist dominated radical environmental outfits were costing India around 1% of its economic growth annually with all their viscous and implacable and utterly stupid opposition to just about any development the Indian government wanted to implement to advance the economic well being of their people.

      There is just too much negative information starting to emerge about a very big percentage of these so called charities, information on the very high salaries being paid, the luxurious expenditure on all sort of facilities and transport and travel that the employees and executives of so many of these purported “charities” are enjoying at the public’s emotionally driven and generous giving expense.

      It is starting to get a lot harder for people to continue to give generously when there too many public revelations of such scamming of donations is being done by highly paid executives and staff of some of these so called charities.

      Charities are big business indeed.

      From; Australian Charities Report 2014
      &
      Executive summary ; Australian Charities Report 2014 [PDF 6.26MB]

      There were 37,798 charities registered with the ACNC as of before 31 July 2015

      Charities have combined total income of over $103 billion

      The largest 5% of charities receive 80% of the sector’s income.
      ————————–
      Charities by sector

      Culture and recreation (6%)
      Development and housing (8%)
      Education and research (18%)
      Environment (3%)
      Health (9%)
      International (1%)
      Law, advocacy and politics (1%)
      Other/unknown (11%)
      Philanthropy (6%)
      Religion (30%)
      Social services (7%

      120

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        I suggest that a proportion of the stated percentage for “Education and Research” should actually sit with the “Environment”

        Three percent of the total will probably cover their promotional activities for Environment in terms of lobbying.

        Climate Researchers, on the other hand are likely to be getting large grants from the Education and Research budget.

        40

      • #
        RobertBobbert GDQ

        ROM.
        A charity in Melbourne in the news last week.
        E J Whitten.
        AFL footballer Coach and Media. An Icon and Game Legend.In all fields.
        Died in emotional circumstance as a result of not taking care of prostate issue.
        Foundation is set up and they hire Management company for fund raising.
        This EJ Whitten Foundation gets mass publicity and an annual game of retired stars rakes in donations over a decade or so.
        Last week Foundation sacks management company with claims of charity only getting 6% of the raised funds in some years.

        Claims of 6% paid out and this was one of the most public charity concerns in the state.

        20

  • #
    Doug Proctor

    It is said that climate is local, i.e. weather. One’s view of climate is determined by variations and changes in the weather he has experienced over his life. I’d say that LIFE is local. What is of concern in the world is dominated by what is significant to one’s own life. The lives of those in the Ganges delta don’t signify much in rural England.

    HOWEVER, there is also the Western, Christian (non-PC here, but true!) that each of us has both the right and the duty to improve his lot in life. If that means moving, changing jobs, adapting to the local sphere or getting educated in other ways, he has to do it. Sitting around as crap flies is not a respected response. Which means the average Briton expects others to work hard, make sacrifices to help himself. The sayings “God helps them that help themselves”, “Fool me once, shame of thee, fool me twice, shame on me” and “God never throws challenges at us that He also hasn’t given us the tools to overcome” are what drove the 19th century British (and American) empires. Fatalism and waiting for authorities to provide ideas, mechanisms and funding to make one’s life better do not fit into this scheme.

    We hear of so many destitute people being adversely affected by “climate change”, one would be callous indeed not to be sympathetic. However, we do not hear anything about self-directed responses to fix or mitigate the situation. Are the African communities that walk for miles for water and wood moving to the water, preventing local pollution of the water, planting forests to take CO2 out of the atmosphere, cool and moisten the local area and reducing transport time (for the women)? Are the Indonesians and Brazilians voluntarily stopping the burning of the tropical forests? Are the Chinese installing modern particulate and sulphur reduction equipment on their coal plants (the pollution in Beijing is NOT CO2, but particulate, SO2 etc.)? And what of the Pacific Islanders – are airports and holiday hotels being constructed by the locals to avoid imminent personal danger (they can hide above the rising waters or fly out when the storms come), or some other, less self-helpful strategy (other than wealth creation for the politicos)?

    In short, I think a lot of the non-help from the average Brit (and other non-IPCC-UN employee or hanger-on) is because there is no sense of the afflicted trying to help themselves. And that is not just a moral or ethical concern (though, as I state in the beginning it is a concern). It is because not trying to change things may mean that you don’t think there is something worth changing about. At a national level, certainly nothing worth changing about NOW (China, India, Indonesia are just three of the obvious, up-front ones).

    The days of OXFAM using pictures of starving children with big, sad eyes to raise money is over not because those children don’t need help, but because there was a colonialist assumption of the Western, white requirement to help its “children” across the world. The poor of the world who were not white and not of a Western culture needed help because they were racially and culturally unable to help themselves. We of the West don’t believe that any more. All people can help themselves, but we have been educated about places (like Afghanistan, the Sudan, Somalia and whereever Boko Haram operates) where the local culture (politics, tribalism) does NOT place a value on self-improvement but actively resists it. You do not still have open sewer ditches in Afghani villages because you don’t understand about disease or how to dig a latrine, and you do not kill doctors come to stop the spread of Ebola because you have abandoned your days of witchcraft and xenophobia.

    The eco-green movement still stands on the principle that the “others”, i.e. non-European, non-white culture are in some manner superior in capability not just by understanding but by getting what is needed done. Greenpeace imposes its believes because the locals – whoeverr they are – are not smart enough or capable enough or insightful enough to “see” reality. They are still children who need their parents (or at least big brothers and sisters) to do the thinking and commanding for them. But the average Joe sees through this. The 19th century extension of nolesse obligese doesn”t fly any more.

    If the distressed people need our help, we expect them to be doing what they can in the meantime. The West resented the French acquiescence to Hitler during WWII for this reason, and only a skillful emphasis on the Resistance brought France out of WWII with any respect. Same reason. Don’t just say, “Give me money (or guns) and then I’ll do something”. You have to be seen doing something, anything you can, BEFORE we give you our stuff.

    So far the IPCC/UN position is simple: the eco-green leading nations have to shackle their economies and dig deep into their pockets before the other “poor” nations (including China!) will do anything about their part in the CONTINUING “problem”. The northern hemisphere, developed world may actually benefit from global warming, and the suffering exist only in the other parts, but those other parts are not prepared to do much on their own. Business as usual …. unless you lay a bunch of green on us.

    Of course the average Brit (American, Canadian etc.) doesn’t want to contribute to the “green funds”. He’d have to be an imperialist, racist, paternalist, Rousseauian ideologue to be keen.

    321

    • #
      Dennis

      conomic Systems: The alarmists keep telling us their concern about global warming is all about man’s stewardship of the environment. But we know that’s not true. A United Nations official has now confirmed this.
      At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.
      “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said.

      Read More At Investor’s Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/021015-738779-climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism.htm#ixzz3tkpIxBy8

      131

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Doug said:

      So far the IPCC/UN position is simple: the eco-green leading nations have to shackle their economies and dig deep into their pockets before the other “poor” nations (including China!) will do anything about their part in the CONTINUING “problem”.

      The shackling of the supply in the economy is only the half of it as the other half is demand destruction, or as Leondardo DiCaprio said last week:

      The solutions we seek [on Climate action] require all of us to make real changes in the way we live our lives

      Yeah, this directive to reduce consumption in our devil-may-care lifestyles to avoid an existential threat sounded so convincing when it was read off a script by an actor. Especially an actor whose lifestyle has a long way to fall. Nice acting there. (Surely that was a solar-powered boat with no diesel engine, and the girls’ jean shorts are carbon neutral if that counts.)
      I get the impression that not “all of us” will be making “real changes in the way we live our lives” for the sake of avoiding +0.17°C by 2100. Certainly not Mr Zero-Oscar-Six-Girls on the motor cruiser. He doesn’t have a carbon footprint, he has a roaming carbon crater.

      Just another sector of society that pays lip service to Global Warming but doesn’t want to pay any money for it – so sincere is the depth of their concern.

      20

  • #
    Dennis

    The Goldman Sachs website front page is interesting;

    http://www.goldmansachs.com

    120

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Picture tells a thousand words.

      Why is a merchant banker promoting “Science”.

      Perhaps it’s the management fees (money for jam) for processing Carbon credits?

      KK

      110

  • #
    Manfred

    The researchers don’t know why the skeptics don’t want to pay…

    ‘Researchers’ belongs in inverted commas.
    The authoritative statements are very thinly clad as questions — just another opportunity by the Ministry of Truth to promote the meme.

    Thankfully, most people have the instinctive, inconvenient, epigenetically installed sense to recognise when they’re being duped and screwed simultaneously. Rain dances were always pure spectacle. It’s no different now, except they come with a tax.

    So, while they’re seemingly ‘asking’ and ‘suggesting’, one small further step, it merely becomes a notification of required compliance: ‘we’re taking your money for the kollectiv good’. Hopefully that will be viewed as political suicide. I’m not sure though. The desperation is palpable.

    231

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      I’ve read the paragraphs Jo has highlighted several times now. He makes no attempt to understand whatsoever. The third paragraph is of such obnoxious blindness as to be contemptable. Surely this isn’t a real peer reviewed paper?

      130

    • #
      Ross

      Manfred

      I agree that researchers should be in inverted commas. True researchers would know that similar surveys have been done elsewhere (eg. Pew Research did one in the USA) and they got similar results. So there should be no surprise at all. Also if they looked at their own results they have they 33% as definite skeptics ( includes those saying CC not happening) and yet 45% don’t want to pay –how do they know the difference in the figures ,12%, are all skeptics ?
      If this work was done as a class project by 12 years old I’d expect them to get an “F” for it.

      50

  • #
    doubting dave

    The point is that it really doesn’t matter whether or not people believe in giving their hard earned to the cause in order to help the poor and disadvantaged of the world , because we all know that what ever money we pledge to help them , will be intercepted by the NGO’s and other corrupt organisations that act as the self appointed middle men between us and the needy .

    210

    • #
      Manfred

      …because we all know that what ever money we pledge to help them , will be intercepted by the NGO’s and other corrupt organisations that act as the self appointed middle men between us and the needy

      DD, you’re talking about ‘civil society’ not ‘civilised society‘. Hushed terms of deference are required.

      Civil society is the “third sector” of society, along with government and business. It comprises civil society organizations and non-governmental organizations. The UN recognizes the importance of partnering with [created and defined] civil society, because it advances the Organization’s ideals, and helps support its work. Here are some useful websites for members of civil society and also for those interested in the work of the UN.

      60

      • #
        doubting dave

        Manfred , “nail on the head” isn’t that exactly why your Tony Abbot got shafted , because he wanted to cut out the middle man , and give your money directly to the people that needed it , and cut out the middle man scammers

        30

        • #
          doubting dave

          thus cut out the middle man spivs, sorry too much wine

          10

          • #
            Manfred

            DD, in veno veritas.
            Our Green friends should attempt that a little more and learn to relax, instead of pursuing their fruitless, morally bankrupt quest to subjugate the industrious, free peoples of this wonderful planet.

            Lomborg systematically examines a range of major environmental issues and documents that the global environment has actually improved. He supports his argument with over 2900 footnotes, allowing discerning readers to check his sources.

            30

            • #
              doubting dave

              yes , tell me about it mate , the reason i’m sill up is because i was at work at 4;30 this morning , but since then my oldest daughter has just given birth to my fourth grand child , the little girl was two weeks premature , only weighs 5 pounds , shes so small that my thumb is bigger than her foot , but both mother and daughter are doing fine . So you’ll have to forgive me for thinking charity starts at home , and for staying up til this time , because i’m still buzzing , its a good job that i have a good bottle of Glenmorangie and a few days of work

              30

  • #
    handjive

    Why #COP21 will fail: “Action taken on climate change” is a distant last priority

    Have your Say: The United Nations wants to know what matters to you most

    50

    • #
      Peter C

      Info of those who want to vote. You only get 5 pr 6 votes. Maybe I did not read the instructions. I started at the top and started voting until I ran out. I was not intending to vote for mitigation about Climate Change

      If every one gets 5 votes then less than 2 million people have voted so far.

      40

    • #
      Robk

      Sorry UN, the thought that you want information from me to support your anti capitalist, anti democratic, anti scientific global domination quest repules me. To answer such a question, to “vote” would give you more authority than you deserve.

      80

    • #
      me@home

      I voted and suggested the the action I wanted to see was the UN unfunded.

      20

  • #
    Dennis

    Only ten days left to send your $29.00 for a good cause.

    Send to: PO Box XXX

    50

  • #
    Leigh

    “so unlike the noble researchers who speculate about complex sub-conscious mental defects in people they have no data on”

    They do get quite rabid if you keep “blunting” them with evidence and facts supplied by the very ones they doggedly defend.
    Heres a couple from one very particularly nasty alarmist that can’t see the wood through the trees.
    This one has a very unhealthy fixation of death and destruction of “denialists” such as myself.
    These two are of something like forty odd “nastys” over the last week.
    I kid you not he/she would come back to the same comment and “bite” it again and again without any further input from me.
    And no, I don’t think I’m special, he/she bars no one if you disagree with his/hers views on catostrophic anthropological global armegedon.
    I kid you not,It’s still ongoing!

    mulga mumblebrain Leigh17hours
    “The denialist, being psychopaths, just keep on lying, no matter how often they are exposed. Total lack of morality. Utter contempt for others and for Life on Earth.”

    mulga mumblebrain  Leigh3 days ago

    “You’re a truly poisonous little upstart, aren’t you. Slanderous, vindictive, misrepresenting, mendacious, dishonest. What drives you creatures to destroy your own species? It seems to go beyond mere psychopathy, in my opinion at least.”

    Is it becoming a little dangerous to even try and reaxon with these lunatics, even with evidence supplied by those who promote the scam?
    Go here and read the alarmist story, then scroll down to the comments.
    This is what Jo and everbody is up against with trying to bring some sanity to these country wrecking lunatics.
    http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/2015/12/03/climate-change-affect-shopping-basket/

    131

    • #
      handjive

      Link quote: “Increasingly more intense tropical cyclones are battering banana crops in Queensland.”

      Me thinks that there are more pressing concerns for Australia’s Bananas:

      SMH: Why Australian banana lovers should be worried by deadly disease

      “The new strain is called “Tropical Race 4 Fusarium wilt” (or TR4), and it has spread through Asia, Africa and the Middle East in the past half century. Should it make its way to distant Latin America, the world banana industry would be decimated.

      Locally, that fear has already arrived.”

      70

  • #
    Peter Dunford

    OK. I’ve only read the first paragraph or so. But £27 is $40 not $30. Just saying.

    31

  • #
    Peter C

    The paper seems to imply that taxpayers Money might be spent overseas on other peoples climate change. English people might be prepared to see some of their taxes spent at home to improve drains for flood mitigation for instance.

    How many people would like to see environmental authorities actually doing the job that their title suggests that they should do?

    110

    • #
      Dennis

      How about cleaning the waterways for a start, stop listening to the Greens claims about leaving nature alone, other than natural steams and rivers the canals and drains were built for transportation barges and drainage.

      90

      • #
        Peter C

        Exactly what I was thinking of.

        10

        • #
          michael hart

          In the UK I had a good friend who was an Engineer for a regional authority, and then the Environment Agency. He was certainly someone who regarded his job as primarily keeping the water courses clear so that land drainage would prevent flooding.

          The last time we spoke, some years ago, he said that many housing developers had dubious practices when lobbying the Environment Agency for ‘permission’ to build on flood plains in the Somerset Levels. I’ll put it no more strongly than that.

          Then, more recently, we learned that the Environment Agency itself had encouraged/enforced the reduction of dredging and the re-watering of areas in the Somerset Levels that subsequently flooded. The orders came from the top.

          Green-speak has metastasized into organisations that did, formerly, regard their primary role as protecting the human environment. This may well have been abetted by the centralisation of these services.

          10

  • #
    AndyG55

    WOW.. Has anyone seen this over on Roy’s site ?

    From what I can gather, Patrick Moore has reported Greenpeace to the FBI under the RICO and wire-fraud acts.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/12/greenpeace-founder-reports-it-to-the-fbi-under-rico-and-wire-fraud-statutes/#comments

    240

    • #
      Leigh

      You simply couldn’t make this up.
      Unbelievable!

      100

    • #
      AndyG55

      Thanks mods, for letting that post through so promptly :-)

      [We do what we can when we can :) ] ED

      90

    • #
      David-of-Cooyal in Oz

      Thanks Andy for posting that link (at #15). And thanks to Patrick Moore for his work and actions. It’s about time these people (Greenpeace in this instance) were called to account.
      Great news. I hope it gets the headlines somewhere.
      Cheers
      Dave B

      120

    • #
      TdeF

      “Greenpeace.. is now an enemy of the State, an enemy of humanity and, indeed, an enemy of all species on Earth.”
      Double wow. This from a founder of Greenpeace.

      130

      • #
        TdeF

        From what I have read here, Greenpeace income is $100Million. What?? Unbelievable. This needs verification.

        If so these donations from well intended people pay for fake offices, fake letters and entrapment lawyers to find out where ‘sceptics’ get their money or entrap them? The money donated to a good cause is being spent to enrich individuals and shut down by plausible libel anyone who tries to stop these extremists and their money train. Dr.Moore is right. It is why he left Greenpeace. Now their objective can only be to enrich themselves and attack their perceived enemies. Only publicity will stop this rort.

        30

    • #
      Peter C

      FBI may not take any action.

      It would be nice if Lawrence Carter and Maeve McClenaghan were at least questioned and asked to explain themselves. I think it is too much to hope that they might be charged and convicted of a criminal offence.

      40

      • #
        ROM

        Re; Greenpeace and the utter evil it has so deliberately wrought upon so many millions of the poorest of the world.

        The estimated [ WHO ] 50 million preventable deaths over the last half a century from the greenpeace and other pseudo environmental, pogrom promoting organisations from their banning of DDT as an anti malaria control in undeveloped nations is but the large tip of a very large and deadly Greenpeace and etc environmental organisations created death dealing iceberg.

        Now the heavies, the Dr Patreick Moore with the impeccable creditials of being a greenpeace founder, the Indian Government, the russians, no doubt the Chinese and many Rice dependent, Vitamin A deficient millions from Asia who have been denied the GMO’ed Golden Rice through massive financial and legal Greenpeace pressure leading to the deaths of an estimated more than 10 million children under the age of five are still dying every year.

        quoted from the Golden Rice Project

        Unfortunately, there are no natural provitamin A-containing rice varieties. In rice-based societies, the absence of β-carotene in rice grains manifests itself in a marked incidence of blindness and susceptibility to disease, leading to an increased incidence of premature death of small children, the weakest link in the chain.

        Rice plants produce β-carotene (provitamin A) in green tissues but not in the endosperm (the edible part of the seed). The outer coat of the dehusked grains—the so-called aleurone layer—contains a number of valuable nutrients, e.g. vitamin B and nutritious fats, but no provitamin A. These nutrients are lost with the bran fraction in the process of milling and polishing. While it would be desirable to keep those nutrients with the grain, the fatty components are affected by oxidative processes that make the grain turn rancid when exposed to air. Thus, unprocessed rice—also known as brown rice—is not apt for long-term storage.

        Even though all required genes to produce provitamin A are present in the grain, some of them are turned off during development. This is where the ingenuity of the Golden Rice inventors, Profs Ingo Potrykus (formerly ETH Zurich) and Peter Beyer (University of Freiburg) comes into play. They figured out how to turn on this complex pathway again with a minor intervention.
        The shocking fact is that, far from reaching the envisaged Millenium Development Goals, more than 10 million children under the age of five are still dying every year. A high proportion of those children die victims of common diseases that could be prevented through a better nutrition. This number has been equated with a ‘Nutritional Holocaust’ . It is unfortunate that the world is not embracing more readily a number of approaches wih the potential to substantially reduce the number of deaths. It has been calculated that the life of 25 percent of those children could be spared by providing them with diets that included crops biofortified with provitamin A (beta-carotene) and zinc. Golden Rice is such a biofortified crop. Those involved in the project are hopeful that in a near future Golden Rice will be growing in farmers’ fields and helping to improve the diets of millions of people.

        And another bit of the jigsaw that is now the deadly “environmental” monster Greenpeace.

        Allow Golden Rice now.
        Preventing it is a crime against humanity

        Greenpeace started out as a humanitarian group, the David against Goliath.
        It has now become the establishment, with over $350 million revenue each year, and it characterizes humans as the enemy of the earth.
        Unlike governments or corporations, they have no accountability for their power.
        For example, Greenpeace Germany raises up to $100 million annually but has only forty voting members,whose identities are kept secret. Those forty wealthy people decide on political and economic strategies which are now prolonging the continued death of millions.
        This will not stand.

        Now this is not the end.
        It is not even the beginning of the end.
        But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.

        &

        Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

        Winston Churchill

        130

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Extraordinary!

      Certainly a heartening piece of news even if all that comes of it is that it becomes another small nail in the left wing coffin.

      Bullying and manipulation are not only the enemies of science but as the former head of Greenp$$ce says lead to the halt and
      regression of the development of living standards in deprived countries.

      KK

      60

    • #
      Annie

      That was on WUWT earlier today too.

      40

  • #
    TdeF

    The tragedy of Climate Change is all the good not being done. Our neighbour East Timor really needs and deserves our help. Sub Saharan Africa would do anything for a small solar generator for a hospital and one Melbourne doctor I know is fighting to raise the money. A single windmill sitting idle in SA could bring quality of life to a whole community.

    Why is all the money spent currently in building things in the backyards of Green voters? Sustainable energy is an end of world insurance plan for the well off, bought with tax on everyone else. A huge solar farm to power Las Vegas? The North Sea, rich in oil and windmills? Holland and Germany covered in the things? South Australia with a nameplate 40% of their power from wind, but they are not turned on?

    This fantasy is indulging a vocal political minority while blatantly ignoring world poverty while infamous Green senator Sarah Hansen Young shows Africans how to employ people smugglers on boats, having been so successful in Australia in enabling the greatest tragedy in our history.

    At least Tony Abbott came up with a way to disguise $400Million in foreign aid as Climate Change funds but our new fake PM just throws $1Bn away to the UN. The worse, his favorite carbon credits or carbon indulgences do not even pretend to change CO2. The UN is a replay of the Vatican in Luther’s time, all parties and spending. Haven’t they heard of the internet? Couldn’t they have the COP21 conference somewhere less expensive? I suppose you could argue Paris was the safest place and that Global Warming was the only urgent world problem? COP21 is a disgrace. At the very least, another $1Bn to have a world conference on raising money to fix a non problem and hand over sovereign taxation rights to an unelected group of self appointed rich bureaucrats from Costa Rica and their friends. Plus Helen Clarke and soon, our own millionaire Kevin Rudd.

    180

    • #
      TdeF

      Actually, the Vatican also used the fires of hell as the key motivation for buying indulgences. Nothing changes. Cardinal Gore and Archbishop Flannery live well off the scare of being burned alive by the Angry Summer. As scientists neither can add or multiply but they can whip up a crowd of donors.

      50

  • #
    Mike Spilligan

    doubting dave has got it right; I’d add only that the UK MSM have given a lot of publicity over the last several months to unethical practices – usually repetitive demands for donations and exchanging “sucker lists” – while directors (chief / finance / publicity etc.) can get huge salaries, GBP100,000 or more. On top of that knowing that there are the enforced donations via government agencies such as our Dept for International Development is not going to improve the giving spirit through whatever route.
    Apparently the Maldives delegation at COP21 has screamed “outrage” at the suggestion that they should prove environmental damage before getting treacle on their pudding.

    140

    • #
      doubting dave

      Mike , your so right , if i’m on one of those “sucker lists ” its the “complete sucker” version of it . A few years back the wife and i began sponsoring a young Mexican orphan for just a few quid a month , we thought it would be good for our youngsters to get involved by sending the odd letter and at the same time keeping their feet on the ground and not to take what they have for granted , but once the charity concerned have you reeled in , like a fish on a hook they won’t let go , and i,m convinced they have passed us on to a ” sucker list ” because we get hounded on a weekly basis by just about every charity going

      50

      • #
        ROM

        dd, @ #17.1.
        Did you ever have any really solid evidence except a few kid scrawled letters and photos that could not be verified as to identity on the “Orphan kid” you were supporting?

        The whole Orphan kid thing might have been and might still be quite genuine.
        But!
        Given a lot of other big scams being promoted today by what is accepted, mistakenly as it often turns out, as reputable and worthy organizations I often wonder today if it really was mostly just another of those scams to part rich westerners from their hard earned.

        30

        • #
          Greg Cavanagh

          An orphan scam happened in Australia many years ago. I have a vague memory of it when I was a kid. It hit the news.

          There was also a charity busted in Brisbane who collected money for the starving of Ethiopia. They collected the money, used 80% on administration costs and only 20% got sent overseas, where another 10% was consumed in costs associated with implementing whatever project they had.

          I don’t know if it went to court, but I do remember them defending themselves on television, stating that they DID in fact do projects in Ethiopia. Nobody was convinced and their funding dried up pretty quick.

          I now count all charities and aid programs as scams.

          10

  • #
    diogenese2

    I fear that these “researchers”, cocooned within a mesh of their own restricted world view, had no idea of the questions they needed to ask to obtain the desired result.
    Their myopia has obscured from them the short attention span and tunnel vision of the general public, as well as themselves.
    This survey was conducted, in the UK, in the autumn of 2012, after one of the coldest, wettest summers in living memory , though not in mine – I still remember some dire summers in a caravan in Bognor Regis in the 50′s!
    The outstanding climate event of 2012 was Hurricane “Sandy* which drowned a few Americans and “displaced” 700K.
    Well, by the time of the survey, flooding worldwide had displaced 20m people in 2012 – which I did not realise until I just looked it up.
    The point: that they were assessing support for “adaption” funding when the dominant climate event in the minds of the sample was the (emerging) failure of the richest, most powerful and technically advanced nation in the world to take basic precautions against a known hazard thus demonstrating its incompetence in deploying its own vast resources.
    Why should then any, already overtaxed, UK citizen be willing to provide funding to bodies (ie UN agencies, third world governments, Environmental “Charities” etc, etc) known to be corrupt beyond redemption?
    If they had asked, I could have told them what questions to ask to get the response they required – but what do I know?
    The wonder is that they have published the result!
    However “communication efforts must move beyond the simple provision of information and, instead connect with peoples existing values and beliefs”.
    I think they have been too slow to work that out.

    60

  • #
    Ruairi

    A skeptic would not be a fan,
    Of the warmist climate-change plan,
    With objections to pay,
    For the climate today,
    Which the U.N. attributes to man.

    140

  • #
    Graham Richards

    Very easy to sort it out. In fact it should be made law.

    These payments must be voluntary annual payments. $$ amounts shall be individually made.
    There shall be no ceiling on the amount volunteered nor shall there be a minimum.

    Now that’s DEMOCRACY!!!!!

    81

  • #
    el gordo

    ‘…a belief that nature is the main cause of climate change appears to have a strong negative influence on the decision whether to contribute or not.’

    He got that right, negative feedback is the crux of the matter and the hiatus will soon be devoured by a cooling trend.

    Its our job to convince the 20% (who don’t know the cause of climate change) that its only natural.

    50

  • #
    pat

    maybe not the best result for the CAGW crowd in a country where all poitical parties play the game, but nonetheless I doubt even the figures published.

    uthor affiliations:

    Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, London Schol of Economics and Political
    Science, London, UK; Department of Geography and Environment, London School of Economics and Political
    Science, London, UK

    Acknowledgements:

    …We also acknowledge the Facultad de Ciencias Economicas y Empresariales, Universidad del Pais Vasco, Bilbao, Spain, where TO (corresponding author) was based during the data collection and analysis for the present paper.

    Funding:

    We gratefully acknowledge funding from the EU FP7 Climate for Culture project at the London School of Economics
    [grant number #226973]; the Basque Ministry of Education, Universities and Research [grant number GIC07/56-IT-
    383-07].

    New Climate Economy: London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE)
    LSE has a number of dedicated research centres, including the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, chaired by Professor Nicholas Stern, I G Patel Professor of Economics and Government at LSE. Professor Stern is chairing the Economic Advisory Panel of the Global Commission which will carry out an expert review of the New Climate Economy work…
    ***Reconciling Adaptation, Mitigation and Sustainable Development for Cities (RAMSES). This EU-FP7 funded, 5-year research collaboration aims to identify quantified evidence of the impacts of climate change and the costs and benefits of a wide range of soft (e.g. land use planning) and hard (e.g. infrastructure alteration) climate change adaptation measures…
    http://newclimateeconomy.net/partners/london-school-economics-and-political-science-lse

    LSE Cities: RAMSES
    A European collaborative project on climate change adaptation in cities
    RAMSES is a European research project which aims to deliver much needed quantified evidence of the impacts of climate change and the costs and benefits of a wide range of adaptation measures, focusing on cities…
    LSE is a project partner within a consortium of thirteen public and private research institutions, led by the ***Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, working across eight European countries…
    https://lsecities.net/objects/research-projects/ramses

    20

  • #
    ROM

    There appears to almost nothing in the way of surveys being conducted by skeptically based groups or organisations.

    Nobody, no government funders, nothing is providing any semblance of funding for any skeptical organisations to conduct parallel polls to ascertain the reaction of the public to numerous alarmist propositions and claims based on poll questions the skeptics might like to construct.

    It is so bleeding obvious that almost every single poll that is claimed to represent the attitudes of the public to the green alarmist “dreaded” [ ??? ] climate change consists of heavily biased and loaded questions which can only be answered in a range of limited ways, all of which strongly bias the answers towards the apparent reinforcement of the belief in the climate catastrophe meme by what are ultimately likely to be quite sham like percentages of the ordinary public..

    There could be some quite startling survey results with a much higher percentage of the populace reacting quite negatively to having part with even more of their hard earned if a miniscule amount of the climate funding that is being directed towards climate alarmism” based surveys, [ note I refer specifically to "surveys" only and not to any other climate scams ] , was allocated to a couple of skeptical organisations or skeptical groups, who using identical techniques as the alarmist surveys, were funded to conduct wide ranging skeptically question based surveys.

    That is no more and no less than the alarmist groups and its running dogs in science and the media are already doing.

    Of course the other side of the equation is that the alarmists are making the potentially very fatal mistake of believing their own corrupted survey data with all the connotations that a major collapse of the whole stupid climate alarmist ideology occurring if is just one small trigger of a completely unknown and unforeseen character at this stage is activated that leads to the total unravelling of the whole immense tax payer funded climate alarmist gravy train.

    Nobody knows what that trigger might be or how or when it might be activated but it seems inevitable that the now entirely emotionally based climate alarmism, the science of the climate having been effectively sidelined, and everything associated with climate alarmism such as large sections of the green movement who have staked everything on gaining control of the global energy sources through the likes of a global energy allocating body as per Paris, are heading towards the cliff of a publicly percieved failure and eventual annihilation.

    Then there will be much weeping and wailing and rending of garments and gnashing of teeth and blood on the floor and the End of Times for climate alarmism, signs of which are figuratively are already perceivable in the reactions and increasing extremism of the alarmists and greens.

    [ Hows that for a set of "end of times" climate alarmist cliches ? ]

    Panic is setting in as failure looms for the entire alarmist green backed climate catastrophe meme.

    100

    • #
      Peter C

      Gary Morgan (Gallup) would probably undertake such a poll but he would require funding.

      10

    • #
      Another Ian

      ROM

      ” Why this blog?
      Until this moment I have been forced to listen while media and politicians alike have told me “what Canadians think”. In all that time they never once asked.

      This is just the voice of an ordinary Canadian yelling back at the radio – “You don’t speak for me.” ”

      http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/

      10

    • #

      ‘There appears to almost nothing in the way of
      surveys being conducted by skeptically based
      groups or organisations.’

      Say ROM, in lieu of Lew? :)

      00

  • #
    handjive

    Ya think? Ad experts are “warning the public may have fallen out of love with the brand of “climate change”

    Tony Abbott, take note:

    ABC: Advertising and communications experts are warning the public may have fallen out of love with the brand of “climate change”.

    They say the overwhelming “doom and gloom” messages are not working anymore.

    ” … but for the most part politicians who win, win by telling people what’s good,” Mr Guthrie said.”
    . . .
    The first politician who points out the record cop production; China sees 12th straight record grain harvest
    or, the non-sinking islands: Discovering the remote, unspoilt islands of Melanesia

    Look at the numbers, Abbott.

    If not you Tony, which politician will be the first to point out the emperor has no clothes?

    100

    • #
      handjive

      SMH, Paris UN Climate Conference 2015: Tony Abbott was brought down by the UN, Christopher Monckton says

      Former prime minister Tony Abbott was brought down because of his anti-global-warming views and would have pushed back against plans to form a world government at the Paris climate summit if still in the job.

      These are the views of leading sceptic Christopher Monckton who, in an interview with Fairfax Media, also said Australian institutions such as the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO were being examined by “a formidable team of scientists and lawyers” for possible fraud over manipulating their climate data.

      It’s naive to assume that [Malcolm Turnbull] has not been in contact with the UN.

      Mr Abbott, who once said the notion that climate science was settled was “absolute crap”, but as prime minister said he accepted that humans influenced the climate, had planned to attend the Paris summit before he was deposed by Mr Turnbull in September
      . . .
      Now is the time to tell the truth, Tony.

      30

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      TITLE: “Climate of apathy: Ad men on how to get people engaged in the climate change debate”

      There is NO debate, there never was, and THEY actively discorage such a thing. Ah; my head just exploded.

      90

    • #
      el gordo

      Good read HJ, my blood is boiling.

      ‘…the bigger you make the catastrophe, the less likely people are to think they can do anything meaningful about it …’

      That’s not quite accurate, if the models matched observation then the people might be willing to give. At the moment a large section of society are ambivalent and need convincing that the Klimatariat’s science fiction outlook is worth the money.

      Its going to be hard selling my global cooling meme.

      40

  • #
    pat

    handjive -

    the apathy piece is just the longer version of the RN AM piece today, which is just an excuse for another CAGW piece, this time shilling for work for the advertising industry!

    AM: People are becoming numb to doom and gloom climate change messages, advertisers warn
    BRENDON GUTHRIE: The successful insurance companies who think about it use a very positive spin and usually through humour, and AAMI is a good example of that, to sell what is protection from an underlying fear that everybody has.
    So I think that’s where the climate change lobby and the environmental lobby could probably take a leaf out of their book…
    JAKE STURMER: He says if he had to run a climate change campaign today he’d steer well clear of the negativity and play up the opportunities for a cleaner, healthier environment…

    meanwhile, over at ABC Breakfast, you couldn’t get more mind-numbing than:

    Australia ranked third last in global climate change index
    But our track record in emissions reduction has come under fire, with the release overnight of the annual Climate Change Performance Index, which ranks Australia third last out of fifty eight nations.
    The report is published by NGOs Climate Action Network Europe and Germanwatch, and its findings have been seized upon by environmentalists as proof that Australia is lagging behind the rest of the world.
    CEO of the Australian Conservation Foundation, Kelly O’Shanassy, joins James Carleton on RN Breakfast from Paris.

    (Kelly shills for renewables)

    and

    Helen Clark on why Paris talks must deliver a global climate goal
    She says that while Paris itself isn’t going to stop climate change, delegates must use the conference to produce a roadmap towards an ultimate goal.
    Helen Clark joins James Carleton on RN Breakfast from Paris.

    30

    • #
      JoKaH

      CEO of the Australian Conservation Foundation, Kelly O’Shanassy, joins James Carleton on RN Breakfast from Paris.

      Tim Blair uncovers more!
      http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/

      70

      • #
        Dave

        This CEO is a disgrace

        ACF CEO lives the high life

        Broadcasts it on her Facebook & no-one cares

        All those donation $ going on:
        1st Class Flights
        Dubai 1st Class Lounge
        Champers
        French Food
        Luxury Hotels

        What a joke ACF has become with this parasite in charge!

        SO ANGRY!

        20

        • #
          Annie

          The person referred to, the CEO of the ACF, seems to have flown business, not first, still good in Emirates.

          What really annoyed me was her comment about working on her “political strategy” while sipping her champagne. Is this “charity” meant to chase political aims?

          Her ignorance of things French annoyed me too. Some ambassador, huh.

          10

  • #
    pat

    also, the “Survey” being discussed here plays right into the hands of the CAGW orthodoxy (from the developed countries perspective), because the $100 billion per year is not going to happen.

    8 Dec: ClimateChangeNews: Ed King: Trillions hang on two sentences as Paris climate talks near climax
    Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and China among countries that reject calls for Paris deal to move financial flows away from carbon intensive forms of fuel
    One details how the countries should direct finance flows towards “low emission and climate resilient” economies and societies. The other calls on governments to reduce support for “high emission investments”.
    These are references to fossil fuel energy and sit in a part of the text focused on finance, expected to form the bedrock of a long term binding deal set to be signed off on Friday.
    Both are under fierce attack, the first sentence from Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, which fear immediate impacts on their oil-heavy economies, and the second from China and India, which still have large coal investment plans.
    Two developing country sources told Climate Home that Beijing and Delhi asked for the offending line related to investments to be deleted on Tuesday, fearing it would compromise their economic growth…
    ***Agreement on a radical financial shift to backing clean energy over other sources is “crucial” for success said Thomas Spencer, head of climate diplomacy at the Paris-based IDDRI think tank…
    An Indian analysis distributed to delegates at the Paris climate summit claims the true flow of annual climate funds is closer to $1 billion a year than the $62 billion advertised by the OECD, a club of wealthy nations…
    But in a sign of rising tensions New Zealand, Australia and Switzerland proposed on Monday there should be no $100 billion number in a Paris agreement, arguing it would fast become outdated in a deal primed to last for decades.
    It’s a position supported by the US, which is having troubling getting Congress approval for an initial $3 billion offer to the Green Climate Fund…
    Lead US envoy Todd Stern warned any new finance post 2020 had to be tied to tougher carbon cuts and emissions reporting from developing countries…
    http://www.climatechangenews.com/2015/12/08/trillions-hang-on-two-sentences-as-paris-climate-talks-near-climax/

    reminder:

    2 Dec: Politico: POLITICO California Playbook, **presented by Chevron: BROWN blasts Republican climate ‘disgrace’
    By Carla Marinucci & Jesse Rifkin
    ***Bottom line for the big Paris stage: It’s about who will emerge the winners (and losers) in the race to clean energy…
    ALONG FOR THE RIDE (TO COP21): Led by Gov. Brown and NextGen Climate founder Tom Steyer, the delegation will include Jim Mahoney, Global Corporate Communications & Public Policy Executive, Bank of America; K.R. Sridhar, Founder and CEO, Bloom Energy; Thad Hill, President and CEO, Calpine; Thad Miller, Executive Vice President, Chief Legal Officer and Secretary, Calpine; Pasquale Romano, President and CEO,ChargePoint; Nancy Pfund, Founder and Managing Partner, DBL Investors; Sister Susan Vickers, RSM, VP Corporate Responsibility, Dignity Health; Bernard J. Tyson, Chairman and CEO of Kaiser Permanente, Kaiser Permanente; Raymond J. Baxter, PhD, Senior Vice President, Community Benefit, Research and Health Policy, Kaiser Permanente; David Crane, CEO, NRG Energy; Anthony Earley, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President, PG&E Corporation; Cathy Zoi, CEO, SunEdison Frontier Power; Rob Davenport, Chairman, ***SUNGEVITY and Lyndon Rive, Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer, SolarCity
    ** Presented by Chevron: California’s DOERS do a lot of flying. As one of the state’s top suppliers of aviation fuel, we help millions of Californians get where they’re going.**
    http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/california-playbook/2015/12/politico-california-playbook-presented-by-chevron-brown-blasts-republican-climate-disgrace-panettas-sigh-of-relief-perea-moving-on-211547

    30

  • #
    handjive

    97% Climate Consensus Rebel

    “Those of us who dissent from mainstream thinking about climate change truly are voices in the wilderness, analogous to the Rebel Alliance in the fictional Star Wars’ universe.

    Scattered, underfunded, thin-on-the-ground – that’s us.” Donna Laframboise.
    . . .
    We have had our wins in the climate wars.

    More so, with the death of Maurice Strong, the collective have lost their (im)-moral compass-leader on the eve of the climate jamboree.

    Nothing could have been more devastating than losing the architect of all they stood for.

    To meh, Paris suddenly feels like they are circling the wagons, and we are picking them and their unscientific alarmism off with ease.

    We rebels don’t need no steenkin’ leader, but, the first politician that attempts to rally us under the same banner will have a formidable army of support.
    And data like world wide record grain production, permanent droughts broken, like Texas, record snowfalls where snow was never to fall again.

    It is a positive list of good news.

    Waiting to be told.

    20

  • #
    pat

    ***re Sungevity who joined Jerry Brown on the trip to COP21:

    2012: HuffPo: Joe van Brussel: Danny Kennedy and Sungevity: Solar Power Is Here
    Kennedy transitioned into the entrepreneurship game after working with Greenpeace, where he helped run the company’s Sydney office and managed campaigns in the Australia Pacific region…
    Kennedy attended a large conference in San Jose, CA, for the solar energy industry where then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger spoke to solar entrepreneurs. In his speech, the governor promised to support solar initiatives, and he later followed through on that promise. “He was giving that speech and the rhetoric was raving,” Kennedy recalled of the experience. “It was him at his finest form. A new governor speaking to a group of venture capitalists and entrepreneurs. People were in their chairs, pumping their fists and I was sitting there and said, ‘Wow, this is awesome. It’s really here.’”…
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2012/09/04/danny-kennedy-sungevity-solar_n_1853927.html?ir=Australia

    (an aside: ABC loves Arnold: from AM’s Advertisers’ piece today:
    JAKE STURMER: And the nature messages aren’t just coming from cartoons. Hollywood celebrity Arnold Schwarzenegger has been pumping out the positives at the Paris Climate Summit.
    ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER: The bottom line is that all of you should take the word ‘no’ and ‘it’s impossible’ and ‘can’t be done’ out of your vocabulary, because the fact is that the clean energy future is not only possible, but if we all work together, national governments, sub-national governments and the international community, it is absolutely certain.)

    2009: From Greenpeace To Green Power: Sungevity CEO Danny Kennedy (Part 1 of 7)
    Danny Kennedy: Greenpeace is unique in that it has an incredibly trusted brand and is well known. Even if you do not like it you know the brand, and it has a hell of a fund-raising machine.
    SM: What years did that work encompass?
    DK: I did that from 1993 through 2007.
    SM: You left very recently!
    DK: I left Greenpeace to start Sungevity.
    (from Part 2 of 7) KENNEDY: I happen to be very close to the solar industry because I have been an advocate and champion of it for a long time. ***Greenpeace in many ways has created markets for it through its policy setting and campaign work***. I knew a lot of the players, and I knew the way the industry was developing…
    SM: Does San Francisco provide a rebate from the city or from the utilities?
    DK: They provide it from a dedicated municipal rebate fund. It is unusually high and rich and has been brought down a bit. There are other cities around the state that do it simpler. There is also a California state rebate and a federal tax credit. In the stimulus environment that could be converted to a tax refund, almost like a cash grant…
    http://www.sramanamitra.com/2009/02/25/from-greenpeace-to-green-power-sungevity-ceo-danny-kennedy-part-1/

    ***admitting Greenpeace has “created” the market for solar says a lot about what CAGW is about.

    ABC have been shilling for Sungevity on Foreign Correspondent 26 Nov:

    ABC: California sun: Australian entrepreneur Danny Kennedy cashes in on US solar boom
    Foreign Correspondent – By Eric Campbell

    ABC Foreign Correspondent: How to Save the World – 26 November
    As key climate talks start in Paris, Eric Campbell looks at potential solutions to global warming – from Costa Rica’s thermal power to giant North Sea wind farms and California’s solar start ups.

    20

  • #
    pat

    reminder of another recent survey:

    2015: UK Independent Age: Over three quarters of a million over-65s have had to choose between heating and eating
    An estimated 752,000 older people have had to choose between paying for food and paying for heating. Meanwhile, almost half (43%) of those aged 65 and over say they have gone to bed early to stay warm at least once, with an estimated 890,000 older people doing this often or even every day. That’s according to a new survey by older people’s charity,
    Independent Age, to launch their new free Winter Wise advice leaflet for older people, their families and carers.
    Other key findings include:
    •One in 17 (6%) people aged 65-plus say they don’t eat a hot meal every day in winter
    •One in 17 (6%) people aged 65-plus say they heat one or no rooms in their home in winter
    There are 11.4 million people aged 65 and over in the UK[1], and, according to the poll, just over one-third (36%) do not heat their home adequately some, most, or all of the time in winter because of worry about paying fuel bills…
    http://www.independentage.org/news-media/latest-releases/2015-press-releases/over-three-quarters-of-a-million-over-65s-have-had-to-choose-between-heating-and-eating/

    why would anyone in the UK want their taxes sent elsewhere, when there are so many who could benefit from a little help at home!

    30

  • #
    pat

    7 Dec: PR Week: Sam Burne Jones: How eight agencies are involved in the Paris climate change conference
    Midway through the UN Conference on Climate Change – also known as COP21 – which is being held in Paris, PRWeek looks at eight agencies’ activity both on the ground in the French capital and remotely:
    Headland
    In September, Headland helped launch the Global Apollo Program, an international coalition of business leaders, scientists and environmental experts asking leading nations to commit to renewable energy investment.
    From the start this enjoyed the support of much-loved UK broadcaster Sir David Attenborough, and on 30 November Headland director Mike Sergeant accompanied Attenborough and Global Apollo co-founder Lord Layard to Paris for a series of interviews with outlets including the BBC, CNN, Al-Jazeera and Bloomberg.
    “He’s far too modest to say anything like it. But after a lifetime of observing his planet, Attenborough may have played a significant role in helping to save it,” wrote a somewhat starstruck Sargeant in a blog on the Headland website recounting the trip (LINK)…
    READ THE REST
    http://www.prweek.com/article/1375918/eight-agencies-involved-paris-climate-change-conference?utm_source=Daily+Carbon+Briefing&utm_campaign=bb68b24353-cb_daily&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_876aab4fd7-bb68b24353-303449629

    00

  • #
    pat

    ***survey the right people & get consensus:

    7 Dec: WaPo: Chelsea Harvey: Economists: Climate change is going to cost a lot more than previously thought
    When it comes to climate change, there’s broad consensus among economists that the potential economic impacts will be serious, widespread and more severe than previous estimates have indicated. At least, this is the conclusion of a new survey, published Monday by the New York University School of Law’s Institute for Policy Integrity — and experts say we should be listening to their warnings.
    The report, which was authored by the Institute’s Derek Sylvan and Peter Howard, compiled answers from more than 300 experts on the economics of climate change in response to a set of 15 questions regarding climate change risks, policies and potential damages…
    ***Sylvan and Howard compiled their pool of experts by creating a list of all the people who had published a climate change-related article in a ***leading economics or environmental economics journal since 1994…
    Overall, there was general agreement among the responders on many of the questions…
    Additionally, the respondents seemed to agree broadly that strong action on climate change is necessary to mitigate these effects…
    The fact that there was such consensus at all throughout the survey is one of the most significant things about the report, said Gernot Wagner, lead senior economist at the Environmental Defense Fund…
    “Typically, when you hear about consensus of economists you have a right to remain skeptical,” Wagner said. But, he said, the survey shows that when it comes to climate change, “amongst economists — much like among scientists — there is a lot of consensus in what are the implications and what are the policy conclusions.” …
    Notably, when the report’s authors compared the results of this survey to other surveys conducted among members of the general public, they found that economists seemed more concerned about the impacts of climate change than the public at large. And while this may not be surprising, it’s significant, according to Wagner.
    “If those who know the most about the topic are the most concerned, that’s really what should be worrying us about climate change,” he said…
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/12/07/economists-climate-change-is-going-to-cost-a-lot-more-than-previously-thought/

    10

  • #
    pat

    7 Dec: Reuters: Paul Carrel: IMF’s Lagarde calls for ‘wise’ taxes to foster greener fuels
    International Monetary Fund chief Christine Lagarde called on Monday for tax reforms to be included in a global climate deal to raise incentives for consumers to reduce their energy consumption and to boost demand for cleaner fuels.
    In an opinion piece for German daily Die Welt, Lagarde said the price of greenhouse gas emissions should be at the center of efforts to tackle climate change.
    “With a fairer carbon price, energy savings will be encouraged and demand strengthened for cleaner energy sources and ‘greener’ investments,” Lagarde wrote, adding price changes could be achieved via energy taxes…
    Lagarde said the best way to proceed would be to complement existing fuel taxes with a carbon levy that would encompass coal, natural gas and other oil products. But she said the taxes must be “wise”.
    “Wise taxes must be introduced step by step, such that budgets and households can adjust and new technologies can gain momentum,” she said…
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-summit-imf-idUSKBN0TQ1X820151207

    Reuters appoints all their big hitters to write about this important development!

    8 Dec: ReutersCarbonPulse: Brazil and EU propose new carbon market text for Paris deal
    By Ben Garside, Stian Reklev and Mike Szabo
    Brazil and the EU have jointly proposed new text on international carbon trade in a move observers and negotiators say drastically improves the chances of market provisions being retained in the final UN climate pact.
    The proposal may diminish fears that provisions for international carbon trade risk being squeezed out of the UN climate pact altogether because major economies were giving it a low priority.
    It sets out in more detail than the latest UN proposal ways in which willing nations can use “cooperative approaches” to cut emissions using “internationally transferred mitigation outcomes”, according to the text that was circulated among negotiators and seen by Carbon Pulse, before it was published on the European Commission website.
    “This demonstrates what’s possible when two progressive parties come together. This shows our strong belief in the important role of ambitious and robust carbon markets in reducing global emissions,” said Miguel Arias Canete, the EU commissioner for climate action and energy…
    But one South African negotiator said this could be a sticking point in the talks.
    “We as a developing country without an absolute target want to make sure we can use the mechanism, because the submission presupposes that projects will only be between developed and developing countries. What if you have a project between two developing countries? Does that mean that if we don’t have absolute targets in our INDCs we can’t do that?”…
    But several negotiators told Carbon Pulse that there was another markets proposal that had been circulated by the Umbrella Group – a loose coalition of non-EU developed countries that has included Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Kazakhstan, Norway, Russia, Ukraine and the US. One negotiator from the Umbrella Group, asking not to be named, said that no text at all on markets could still be an option, although it appeared less likely following today’s EU-Brazil proposal.
    “We support the EU-Brazil text but it is quite vague, and if the Umbrella Group one is stronger on ensuring markets are anchored in the agreement, we would support it,” Swartz (emissions trading lobby group IETA) said…
    http://carbon-pulse.com/13054/

    10

  • #
    pat

    8 Dec: ReutersCarbonPulse: Stian Reklev: China’s national ETS to go big from the start -official
    China will bring nearly 10,000 companies emitting around 4 billion tonnes of CO2 per year into its national emissions trading scheme from the start in 2017, a government official said Tuesday, marking a step change from previous plans that would have grown the market to that size only by 2020…
    He said the ETS would cover six sectors and 15 sub-industries from the beginning, contrasting previous statements that 6+2 sectors would be brought in from the start…
    On the sidelines of the event, Jiang told Carbon Pulse that all the provinces and regions in China would be brought into the ETS from the beginning…
    The step change in ambition is likely to raise questions over China’s ability to launch the market as planned…
    Draft regulations were circulated among stakeholders in October, but contained mostly overarching rules, and did not have much detail on allocation and specific trading rules.
    An overriding concern with the Chinese market is the quality of emissions data and getting MRV regulations in place…
    But concerns linger over the ability to credibly verify emissions data from the thousands of facilities that will participate in the national ETS…
    http://carbon-pulse.com/13025/

    8 Dec:BusinessStandardIndia: Nitin Sethi: BASIC stands up for equity, differentiation
    At the juncture when developed countries have joined hands to demand practically an end to the principle of differentiation in the Paris agreement, the BASIC countries, including China, India, Brazil and South Africa came together to demand that the new pact must necessarily be stitched under the existing UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)…
    In the joint statement released at the press briefing, the four countries said, “The BASIC countries re-emphasise that, in accordance with the Durban mandate, the Paris agreement is being formulated under the Convention, as such must be in full accordance with its principles and provisions, particularly the principles of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, which is at the heart of the Paris agreement.”
    In a language that showed there was no reconciliation with the developed countries on the fundamental demands or red-lines so far, the four countries said, “ambition and effectiveness of the agreement will be underpinned by operationalizing differentiation between developed and developing countries in each element of the agreement.”
    http://wap.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/basic-stands-up-for-equity-differentiation-115120801071_1.html#.VmcomgslP9E.twitter

    10

  • #
    pat

    such a perfect guest for ABC’s Breakfast program!

    9 Dec: Tim Blair Blog: DUCK LE ORANGE
    It’s been a wonderful climate change conference for Kelly O’Shanassy. Let’s join the Australian Conservation Foundation CEO on her Parisian adventure, beginning with a luxurious layover in Dubai…READ ON
    http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/duck_le_orange/

    30

  • #
    pat

    from Ed King’s Reuters’ Trillions piece above:

    ***Agreement on a radical financial shift to backing clean energy over other sources is “crucial” for success said Thomas Spencer, head of climate diplomacy at the Paris-based IDDRI think tank…

    UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network: SDSN Member: Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations (IDDRI)
    The Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations (IDDRI) is a non-profit policy research institute based in Paris. Its objective is to determine and share the keys for analyzing and understanding strategic issues linked to sustainable development from a global perspective. IDDRI helps stakeholders in deliberating on global governance of the major issues of common interest: action to attenuate climate change, to protect biodiversity, to enhance food security and to manage urbanisation. IDDRI also takes part in efforts to reframe development pathways…
    It applies a cross-cutting approach to its work, which focuses on five themes — global governance, energy and climate change, biodiversity, urban fabric, agriculture — and one cross-disciplinary programme — new prosperity.
    As a Sciences Po partner, IDDRI’s experts are highly involved in teaching and in developing research programs.
    As a non-profit research institution acting for the common good, the institute posts all of its analyses and proposals free of charge on its website.
    http://unsdsn.org/where-we-work/members/iddri/

    IDDRI: Governance
    Founding members
    EDF, represented by Claude Nahon
    ***EpE, represented by Claire Tutenuit
    GDF-Suez, represented by Françoise Guichard
    Veolia, represented by Pierre Victoria…
    http://www.iddri.org/Iddri/Gouvernance

    Members: EpE (Entreprises pour l’Environnement):
    includes:
    Air France, AXA, BASF, Bayer, BNP Paribas, Coca-Cola, Deloitte, EADS, EDF, GDF-Suez, IBM, Michelin, Renault, Sanofi,
    Schneider Electric, Socite Generale, Veolia ETC

    20

  • #
    el gordo

    Essential Poll

    Q. Do you approve or disapprove of Australia using $1 billion of our foreign aid budget over the next 5 years to help Pacific Island nations address the impacts of climate change?

    ‘…44% approve of Australia using $1 billion of our foreign aid budget over the next 5 years to help Pacific Island nations address the impacts of climate change and 40% disapprove.

    ‘Those most likely to approve were Greens voters (61%), men (50%) and university educated (55%). Those most likely to disapprove were Liberal/National voters (47%), women (45%) and aged 65+ (48%).’

    ——–

    This might become an election issue.

    30

    • #
      Mark D.

      Those most likely to disapprove were Liberal/National voters (47%), women (45%) and aged 65+ (48%).’

      ——–

      This might become an election issue.

      Will become an election demographic issue in less than 10 years.

      10

      • #
        el gordo

        The election is less than a year away and Talkbull is eroding the Coalition base without a care in the world.

        I’m surprised so many women are against the idea of building cyclone shelters on tropical islands.

        10

    • #
      AndyG55

      As there will be essentially ZERO impact, that means a saving of $1 billion from foreign aide. :-)

      00

  • #
    Brian H

    Real adaptation is, and must be, response to actual developments, not theoretical risks. As such, none id yet called for, or is soon likely to be.

    20

  • #
    Brian H

    Paris will be a Veto-Fest, with competing powers killing each others’ plans. Much fun will be had by all, but it will end in tears.

    10

  • #
    DOC

    The average Brit like the average Australian struggles to keep up with the Cost of Living. Much of that comes from the cost of government and semi government bodies bulging their invoices with green and environmental expenditures. Why on earth would any government in its right mind seek to strip them of more of their earned funds?

    The trouble is, most governments are not in their right minds as proven by the dire straits of their financial books, records and overwhelming debt.

    40

    • #
      ianl8888


      The trouble is, most governments are not in their right minds as proven by the dire straits of their financial books, records and overwhelming debt

      So read this piece of semi-satire:

      https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/steyn-testimony.pdf

      Extraordinary that we have come to this. And although I suppose it isn’t really funny, the comment that “the US Govt has to pay back $20trillion just to have nothing” strikes a very deep chord of laughter in me

      70

  • #
    George McFly......I'm your density

    I think the sample number of 1066 is quite an amusing coincidence…very British

    20

  • #
    Yonniestone

    Apologies for OT, Mark Steyn tearing the Democrats a new one at climate hearing, very well said and calling these activists out via democracy, smack!

    60

  • #
    pat

    some extra detail on Sungevity.

    in the piece – “From Greenpeace To Green Power: Sungevity CEO Danny Kennedy” – where Kennedy claimed Greenpeace helped to create the solar market, he also said: “I knew a lot of the players”.

    would he be referring to any of the following:

    13 May: Bloomberg: Stefan Nicola: E.ON to Expand Solar Sales in Germany in Tie-Up With Sungevity
    The U.S. developer (Sungevity) also has sales and marketing relationships with the Sierra Club, home-improvement store chain Lowe’s Cos Inc. and General Electric Co.
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-12/eon-to-expand-solar-sales-in-germany-in-tie-up-with-sungevity

    April 2014: Bloomberg: Justin Doom: Sungevity Receives $70 Million From Investors Including EON, GE
    Sungevity Inc., a closely held developer of rooftop systems, received $70 million from a group of investors including E.ON SE and General Electric Co. to expand in Europe and Australia…
    Jetstream Capital LLC led the funding round. It was the first investment from EON, the largest utility in Germany. General Electric, the world’s largest maker of power-generation equipment, had invested previously.
    Sungevity now has raised more than $200 million…
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-04-04/sungevity-receives-70-million-from-investors-including-eon-ge

    23 July: Huffington Post: Katherine Boehrer: Solar Company Sungevity Raises $1.5 Million For Nonprofit Partners
    The company’s partnership program, Sungevity.org, works with nonprofit organizations to raise money for their causes while encouraging their members to choose Sungevity for their solar installations. Sungevity has now donated more than $1.5 million to nonprofits ranging from the Sierra Club and Save the Frogs to schools and science centers…
    “Every home that we get to go solar, Sungevity gives us $750 back,” said Sierra Club Chief of Staff Jesse Simons said in a Sungevity.org promotional video. “This has been a great revenue-generating tool for the Sierra Club.”…

    SOMETIMES I THINK OF COP21 AS A GIGANTIC TRADE FAIR FOR THE SOLAR, WIND AND ASSOCIATED CAGW-INVESTED INDUSTRIES.

    31

  • #
    ROM

    Of topic, yet!

    A couple of weeks ago I posted here on Jo’s blog my belief that the global political scene was going to move right as it always has done in times of serious societal disruption.

    So a sign of the times which also presages the beginning of the end for many of the increasingly corrupt leftist groupings such as much of the major environmental outfits who have been the biggest financial and influence pedalling beneficiaries of the “Big Government Solves All things/ Democracy and Capitalism are finished and Beaten” meme of the last quarter of a century.

    Argentina and now Venezuela have just elected conservative right leaning governments and Presidents and there are signs that the strangle hold the left has had on the Latin American countries for two or three decades is being prised loose after decades of grossly inefficient, highly dictatorial and often very corrupt socialist governments about on a par with equally dictatorial and corrupt governments run by the hard right Latin American dictators of the past.
    —————–
    Now from the BBC we have this political analysis and opinion comment for what it might be worth, so don’t hold your breath!

    Europe may be witness to a new political era

    “The success of Marine Le Pen and the National Front (FN) in France underlines the shifting plates of European politics.”
    &
    Germany; “A recent poll found that 48% of Germans do not want her [ Merkel ] to stay as Chancellor, because of the migrant crisis”
    &
    The UK; Conservative and likely to stay that way given the whacko Labor hard lefty they have elected as leader.
    &
    “In Italy, the centre-left under Matteo Renzi is pre-occupied with reforming the Italian state, its political culture, its legal system and its economy”
    &
    the USA;.
    “The challenge is also there in the US. Hillary Clinton, campaigning for the Democrats’ nomination, said: “The defining economic challenge of our time is clear. We must raise incomes for hard-working Americans so they can afford a middle class life.”
    ——–

    Times, they are a’changing and the great socialist dream is turning into a nightmare of increasing debt, uncontrolled immigration, un-competitive industry and rising unemployment plus increasing poverty due to out of reality increases in energy prices with the government legislated forcing of its citizens to purchase the most expensive and most unreliable and most unpredictable Renewable energy before they can purchase the lower priced utterly reliable fossil fueled grid energy, all of which are exacerbating the energy poverty and increasing death toll for the lowest earning strata of its citizens.

    To re-quote Winston Churchill from my post at #15.5.1

    Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

    Winston Churchill

    60

  • #
    Stephen Harper

    Jo,

    I am loath to be a pedant but….were there just the two mispellings of “adaptation” that I found in the body of your “researcher”-swekering piece, I wouldn’t have piped up. But, there is that non-word “adaption”, right there in the headline. I must admit to it being a pet hate non-word of mine.

    Incidentally, the moral vanity of the fabulously self-unaware “researchers” is palpable.

    20

    • #
      tom0mason

      Stephen Harper

      From http://grammarist.com/usage/adaption-adaptation/

      Adaption and adaptation are different forms of the same word, and they share all their meanings, which include (1) the act of changing to suit new conditions, and (2) a work of art recast in a new form or medium. But the longer word, adaptation, is preferred by most publications and is much more common. Adaption is not completely absent, but it usually gives way to the longer form in edited writing.

      Both forms are old. The OED lists examples of adaption from as long ago as the early 17th century. Adaptation is just a little older, having come to English from French in the middle 16th century. Adaption has never been the preferred form, though, and in fact has grown less common relative to adaptation over the centuries.

      It’s possible that some English speakers now view adaptation and adaption as separate words each with their own uses, but any such emerging differentiation is not yet borne out in general usage. For now, at least, adaption always bears replacement with the more common form.

      Also see
      http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/adaption
      http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/adaption
      http://www.thefreedictionary.com/adaption

      As we dyslexics know, English is a highly adaptable language because it is a ‘live’ language not (as say, Latin) a dead static and unchanging language. In the English language many words, their usage and their spelling, have come into vogue and go out of fashion (consider Phial vs. vial, or Percent vs. per cent, color vs. colour, etc). Indeed attempts at universally agreed standard spelling and usage is only a recent phenomenon in the language’s history. Progress in this standardization (standardisation?) has only been successful in very limited cases, and should be viewed as only required in specialized subjects.
      Thankfully this is a public blog forum, and such rigid strictures of language usage should be deprecated.

      20

  • #
    pat

    OUCH!

    8 Dec: WUWT: Eric Worrall: UGLY: Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Gas Chamber Fantasy for Climate Skeptics
    Arnold Schwarzenegger has received over 100,000 likes, for a Facebook post about the alleged benefits of renewables, which included a fantasy about people who choose petrol powered cars spending an hour with the car of their choice, locked in a sealed room with the engine running, without a gas mask….
    From Arnold’s post:
    “I don’t give a **** if we agree about climate change.
    Renewable energy is great for the economy, and you don’t have to take my word for it. California has some of the most revolutionary environmental laws in the United States, we get 40% of our power from renewables, and we are 40% more energy efficient than the rest of the country. We were an early-adopter of a clean energy future.
    Our economy has not suffered. In fact, our economy in California is growing faster than the U.S. economy. We lead the nation in manufacturing, agriculture, tourism, entertainment, high tech, biotech, and, of course, green tech.”…
    Schwarzenegger is wrong about renewables being “great for the economy” – as WUWT reported back in May, the cost of energy in California is having a significant impact on jobs, and is contributing to decisions by many businesses to relocate to Texas. This has become such an issue, that Californian Democrats who represent poor, working class areas recently mutinied against Governor Brown’s efforts to introduce tougher CO2 emissions targets, and sided with Republicans to defeat the bill…
    Note from Anthony:
    It appears the great musclehead mind has confused Carbon Monoxide, and Carbon Dioxide…READ ALL
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/08/ugly-arnold-schwarzeneggers-gas-chamber-fantasy-for-skeptics/

    30

  • #
    pat

    Aussie Simon Thomsen loves Arnold’s “epic smackdown of the naysayers”:

    8 Dec: BusinessInsider Australia: Simon Thomsen: ‘I don’t give a **** if we agree’: Arnold Schwarzenegger’s epic rant about climate change
    Actor and former California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has long been a passionate advocate for alternative energy…
    Overnight, The Terminator also took to Facebook with an epic smackdown of the naysayers titled “I don’t give a **** if we agree about climate change”…
    Schwarzenegger’s critical point about the need for change is best summed up in one killer line about the fossil fuels industry: “I don’t want to be the last investor in Blockbuster as Netflix emerged.”…
    http://www.businessinsider.com.au/i-dont-give-a-if-we-agree-arnold-schwarzeneggers-epic-rant-about-climate-change-2015-12

    MSM loved this fact-free Arnie moment as well:

    9 Dec: Sydney Morning Herald: Paris UN Climate Conference 2015: Arnold Schwarzenegger urges switch to vegetarian diet
    Now the body-builder turned-actor-turned-politician has urged people to turn vegetarian – at least part-time – to save the planet.
    “Right now people, seven million people are dying every year,” he said at climate change talks in Paris. “That is alarming and everyone in government has the responsibility to protect the people.
    “They have to do something about it.”…
    http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/beauty/paris-un-climate-conference-2015-arnold-schwarzenegger-urges-switch-to-vegetarian-diet-20151208-glivw3

    funny how the same MSM who normally loathes everything Arnold stands for, love him cos he’s a CAGW believer (or a shill for renewables).

    10

  • #
    Ross

    Has anyone seen an “independent” review of the Climate Hustler film? I’ve read James Delingpole’s comments which I’m sure are accurate but I’d be interested in reading from someone who not quite so close to the action.

    20

  • #
    pat

    James Corbett has some great stuff up yesterday and today to coincide with COP21. he’s such a good communicator:

    VIDEO: 23mins11secs: What Is The Average Global Temperature?
    https://www.corbettreport.com/what-is-the-average-global-temperature/comment-page-1/#comment-28155

    AUDIO: 27mins40secs: Jim Steele on How Bad Global Warming Science Hurts the Environmental Movement
    https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-1117-jim-steele-on-how-bad-global-warming-science-hurts-the-environmental-movement/

    VIDEO: 5mins11secs: Climate Change is Unfalsifiable Woo-Woo Pseudoscience
    Karl Popper famously said, “A theory that explains everything explains nothing.” So what do you make of the theory that catastrophic manmade CO2-driven “climate change” can account for harsher winters and lighter winters, more snow and less snow, droughts and floods, more hurricanes and less hurricanes, more rain and less rain, more malaria and less malaria, saltier seas and less salty seas, Antarctica ice melting and Antarctic ice gaining and dozens of other contradictions? Popper gave a name to “theories” like this: pseudoscience…
    https://www.corbettreport.com/climate-change-is-unfaslifiable-woo-woo-pseudoscience/

    30

  • #
    el gordo

    ‘A slow-moving low pressure system has brought unusual summer weather to WA’s southwest, with some places seeing their coldest December day in over 50 years and many already receiving more than their monthly average rainfall.

    ‘The low, which was fed by warm seas in the Indian Ocean, moved over the region on Saturday, bringing an end to the run of sunny and balmy weekends seen during November.

    ‘Residents instead had to endure a wet and windy weekend with weather more typical of August than December enticing winter clothes from the cupboard.’

    Weatherzone

    20

  • #
    Dave in the states

    The alarmists have not made their case. The public is not in line. They know it is all unnecessary and it will all be absolutely futile. Hence all the talk about legally binding clauses and “enforcement” at Paris. Hence years of fudging data.

    Let them present a scientifically viable case. Not more propaganda, or presenting failed fantasy models as evidence, instead of real unadulterated empirical data.

    Furthermore, their moral argument rings hollow. What is being proposed, people know will hurt the poor rather than help them, long term. Especially the poor in their own nation. Why sacrifice freedom, and your own children’s future for that? Not one penny to support a socialist, unneeded, ultimately futile, non-solution.

    10

  • #
    TdeF

    So if I understand this, in the face of resistance to taxation the move is from ‘mitigation’ to more pragmatic ‘adaption’. This means instead of paying people not to generate CO2, we pay people to cope with rising sea levels?

    Now COP21 has the group of 77 plus China, which has grown to become the Group of 134 or 70% of the world’s countries. However it is interesting to know why Peru with its cities from 2,300 to 3,000 metres above sea level and land locked high altitude Afghanistan are threatened by rising sea levels and need money to adapt. Saudi Arabia and Iran and Nigeria are also in this group and possibly claiming to be victims of excess CO2 from oil.

    Why not just tax Western Democracies plus Japan? These are the culprits who should pay for adaption. Perhaps houses in Afghanistan can be put on stilts?

    10

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    No surprise I think. No one want’s to pay for nonsense. And these days so many are hurting that they don’t want to pay for anything. And the freeloaders, of which we have many, don’t want to pay for anything either.

    So let the climate adaptation funds go to their appropriate place (you’ll get my meaning I’m sure).

    00

  • #
    Rosco

    I was born in 1954 and the climate still seems fine to me.

    No-one could possibly describe if any of the increases in temperature they experience – if indeed there are any – are not simply because whatever urban locality they live in simply has a larger “built environment” area today than it did 50 years ago – the UHI effect which undeniably causes higher temperatures.

    Besides – who is going to stump up $100 billion or more per year ? Only a true acolyte could believe that is going to happen.

    00