Copenhagen: decision "delayed for six years"

14 December, 2009 by

Times Online

Times Online

From the Times Online:

The key decision on preventing catastrophic climate change will be delayed for up to six years if the Copenhagen summit delivers a compromise deal which ignores advice from the UN’s science body.

World leaders will not agree on the emissions cuts recommended by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and are likely instead to commit to reviewing them in 2015 or 2016.

The delay will anger developing countries who, scientists say, will face the worst effects of climate change despite having contributed relatively little of the man-made greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

A draft text published by the UN says that there should be a review in 2016, which could result in an “update of the long-term global goal for emissions reductions as well as of the adequacy of commitments and actions”.

The Times has learnt that negotiators from developed countries are planning to use the idea of a review to justify failing to agree the 25-40 per cent cut in the 1990 level of emissions by 2020, recommended by the IPCC.

Even the most ambitious provisional offers made by all the countries amount to a reduction of only 18 per cent.

In six years’ time, the science will have been blown out of the water by multiple CRU-style and Hockey Stick-type revelations, and we may have some sanity returning to the whole climate change debate.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

Tony Blair: Act now "even if science is wrong"

14 December, 2009 by

Fan of the precautionary principle

Fan of the precautionary principle

Tony Blair makes a stunning acknowledgement: that the science may not be “as certain as proponents suggest.” But that doesn’t stop him relying on the precautionary principle to urge a deal at Copenhagen:

“It is said that the science around climate change is not as certain as its proponents allege. It doesn’t need to be. What is beyond debate, however, is that there is a huge amount of scientific support for the view that the climate is changing and as a result of human activity,” he said.

“Therefore, even purely as a matter of precaution, given the seriousness of the consequences if such a view is correct, and the time it will take for action to take effect, we should act. Not to do so would be grossly irresponsible.”

So even though the science may be wrong, Copenhagen should press ahead regardless? In what other area of policy are the same criteria used? The “precaution” he advises will cost the developing world trillions of dollars, and set back standards of living decades. How about building underground bunkers for everyone on earth in case of an asteroid impact? Surely that’s just as deserving a cause – perhaps even more so given the number of unknown bodies in eccentric orbits? Or providing breathing apparatus in case there is a deadly viral mutation?

Funnily enough, it seems that TB is a fan of the precautionary principle – he just admitted he used it in relation to Saddam Hussein and WMD, and I can only begin to imagine the mess that admission will get him into… He should be more careful advocating it in future, especially when the costs of the precaution itself are huge.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , , ,

Copenhagen Day 7 – China, again

14 December, 2009 by

Day 7

Day 7

China looks like the best hope of scuppering any deal at Copenhagen, and since such a deal will achieve virtually nothing for the climate (remember the Kyoto 0.07˚C) but plunge millions of people back into poverty, a deal of this kind is the last thing we need.

China and other developing nations were yesterday maintaining the tough stance they had taken in these negotiations from the start. They argue that developed nations owe a “carbon debt” to the developing world for emissions already in the atmosphere and that the existing international negotiating mandate does not require developing countries – even China, the world’s largest emitter – to make binding emission-reduction targets that can be internationally checked.

But the US, Australia, the European Union and other developed nations have said a draft agreement from the conference negotiations reflecting that stance is totally unacceptable and no basis for any Copenhagen deal.

US chief negotiator Todd Stern said: “The United States is not going to do a deal without major developing countries stepping up.”

Senator [Penny] Wong said such a result would not deliver the environmental outcome that was the whole point of the Copenhagen talks.

The developed countries point out that 97 per cent of the growth in greenhouse gases between now and 2030 will come from the developing world, with China contributing about half of that. Erwin Jackson of Australian think tank The Climate Institute said leaving one of the world’s biggest emitters out of a new treaty would be fatal.

“Without a treaty that fairly covers all major emitters, global action will be undermined and political support would collapse into a meaningless pledge and review system,” he said. (source)

There are also problems over the verification of voluntary developing nation cuts, with China and India both stating that it’s their own business. Some media outlets are already contemplating failure, as the Herald Sun puts it:

‘Fizzer’ fears for summit

We can only hope.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

Australia may "foot huge climate change bill"

13 December, 2009 by

Us (L), Them (R)

Us (L), Them (R)

Another global socialism alert, as a fudged deal in Copenhagen will mean that billions of dollars of your hard-earned taxpayer dollars will be sent to developing countries to help them “cope with climate change”, instead of where they should be going, to education, health, law and order and all the other domestic policies that are in such a disastrous mess under Rudd & Co:

AUSTRALIA faces having to make a hefty payout to help developing countries such as China and India cope with climate change in order to clinch a deal in Copenhagen.

Despite Australia facing a domestic Budget deficit of about $50 billion for the coming year, Climate Change Minister Penny Wong told The Sunday Mail from Copenhagen that Australia would have to contribute to so-called climate “abatement” funds if India and China were to come into the climate-change tent.

“There are a range of figures flying around,” Senator Wong said. “(British Prime Minister) Gordon Brown has proposed a $100 billion mix of public and private money. We have not indicated a figure but we have indicated we’re prepared to do our fair share.”

Do you remember anything about this in Rudd’s election promises? That they plan to send billions of your dollars to other countries for no justifiable reason? I don’t, and I’m not happy about it.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Copenhagen Day 6 – protests dominated by "anti-capitalist speeches"

13 December, 2009 by

Anti-globalisation, anti-capitalist…

Anti-globalisation, anti-capitalist…

The media is full of the protests yesterday for “tough action” on “global warming”, but the reality is that the environmental movement has been hijacked by an extreme left-wing, anti-globalisation and anti-capitalist agenda. Even the Sydney Morning Herald admits it. One of the banners read “Change the politics. Not the climate”! They don’t give a toss about the climate, they only want to change the system. And, naturally, the protests turned violent. What is it with the left and violence?

Tens of thousands of protesters have marched through Copenhagen calling for tough action from the UN climate conference, after police arrested about 400 rioters at the start of the demonstration.

Organisers of the rally had repeatedly urged the crowd to remain calm and friendly before the march began on Saturday, and the speeches were dominated by calls for social justice and critiques of global capitalism.

But soon after the demonstration started, police arrested about 400 protesters, masked youths dressed in black who threw bricks and firecrackers and smashed windows in the city centre.

Around 50 police in riot gear moved in, forcing the protesters to the ground and bundling them into vans. (source)

And in London, Barmy Prince Charlie has kept the climate madness flag flying by issuing a memorandum with Nobel laureates that compares the threat of “global warming” to that of nuclear destruction!

The group of Nobel winners, together with Prince Charles, issued a memorandum which declared the best chance of stopping catastrophic climate change is to keep the predicted temperature rise at or below 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F).

Without action, they envisaged three times that temperature rise, which would mean global warming would cause a huge rise in sea levels, and swamp the cities of London, Paris and Copenhagen.

The communique is likely to influence world leaders at the forthcoming international conference on climate change in Copenhagen at the end of this year. [Only if they’re completely stupid – oh, they probably are… – Ed]

More than 20 Nobel Laureates, including President Obama’s Energy Secretary Steven Chu, gathered at the meeting in London to discuss the threat of global warming.

After three days the St James’s Palace Nobel Laureate Symposium concluded that climate change posed a danger of similar proportions to “the threat posed to civilisation by the advent of thermonuclear weapons”.

The memorandum read: “The St James’s Palace Memorandum calls for a global deal on climate change that matches the scale and urgency of the human, ecological and economic crises facing the world today. (source)

After that load of cobblers, we really need some sanity, courtesy of Piers Ackerman:

Professor Kellow, an expert reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth report, said despite the denials made by key scientists whose work has been used to support the global warming theory, the leaked emails show the manipulation of the analysis was “in many ways worse than many of us expected when we knew about this case from the outside without access to these kinds of exchanges”.

“What you have is evidence of a quite clear willingness to manipulate raw data to suit predetermined results, you’ve got a resistance to any notion of transparency, an active resistance to freedom of information requests or quite reasonable requests from scientists to have a look at data so that it can be verified,” Professor Kellow said.

He listed the malpractices as evidence of attempts to subvert the peer-review process, evidence of pressure being placed on editors to reject dissident views on climate science, and then attempts by the lead authors in the IPCC report to keep any opposing peer-reviewed science that has managed to get into the literature out of the IPCC report and, ultimately, ensuring it doesn’t find its way into the all-important summary for policy makers, which, he said, was about all the politicians and bureaucrats read.

The policy makers are now convinced, according to Professor Kellow, that earth’s climate system is like a kind of thermostat in which we can dial in a particular level of CO2 and get a two-degree temperature rise over the next 100 years.

In the professor’s view, “anyone who knows anything about climate science will tell you that that’s nonsense”.

Very expensive nonsense, too, if the farcical plan to salve the consciences of Western Greens by transferring the capital and industries of developed nations to the Third World is agreed to this week in Copenhagen. (source)

Climate sense is hard to come by at the moment…

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Abbott: Rudd's Copenhagen entourage an "unfair expense"

12 December, 2009 by

Rudd wants to rule the world

Rudd wants to rule the world

But surely Statesman Rudd requires all of those 114 delegates (including a personal photographer) in order to appear sufficiently like a future UN secretary general for the unofficial job interview he’s attending? Oh, you guys all think he’s going for climate talks? Ha, ha – good one.

Opposition leader Tony Abbott says the size of the Australian delegation to the UN climate conference in Copenhagen is an unfair expense on tax payers.

The Opposition says Kevin Rudd will be taking 114 people to the conference – a larger contingent than that of Britain or India.

World leaders will be joining the conference next week to try and negotiate a global climate agreement.

Mr Abbott says the Prime Minister Kevin Rudd should be focussing on Australia.

“I think it’s in a sense admirable that Kevin Rudd is prepared to risk jet lag for our country,” he said.

“But the people who he’s really got to persuade about his whopping great big emissions tax are here in Australia, not in Copenhagen.”

Rudd cares little for domestic politics at the moment – his focus is the world stage.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , , ,

Copenhagen: Armed response to Climategate question

12 December, 2009 by

Climate science is all about open debate, right? Wrong.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Copenhagen Day 5 – Rudd's document irks Chinese

12 December, 2009 by

Day 5

Day 5

It’s not going very well, and part of the reason for that is Kevin Rudd’s desire to be seen as an international statesman, at the forefront of negotiations. But unfortunately his meddling is annoying the Chinese, whose participation is essential if any deal is to come out of Copenhagen:

CHINA has accused the developed world of retreating from its undertakings to cut greenhouse gas emissions, rejected a proposal at the Copenhagen conference to reduce financial help to China and described the draft deal Kevin Rudd worked on as creating “a lot of problems”.

The Chinese have accused the developed world of abandoning the Kyoto Protocol and pressuring the developing nations to cut emissions without proper compensation for the “luxury emissions” the West has put out for the past century.

The so-called “commitment circle” draft document worked out between Denmark, Australia and other nations was said to be from a small and isolated group and designed to lift the political standing of individuals. [Who could they possibly mean? – Ed]

…

The Chinese position is providing no room to raise its carbon emissions target and to accept any binding agreement. It is demanding new technology regardless of patents, and rejects the view that it should be labelled a developed nation. The draft proposal, which involved the Danish leader and Mr Rudd as a “friend of the chair of the conference”, “was not the overwhelming view of developed countries and was also a personal view not representing the view of his country“, Mr Zhang said.

“The so-called draft has been widely criticised by the developing camp through the group of 77, which truly demonstrates this draft was made by a very small number of countries in isolation, and there are a lot of problems to be addressed,” he said. (source)

Keep up the good work, Kevin – you’re doing everyone a favour. If you want to read the draft, you can find it here.

And China is digging in, pushing its right to economic development:

China has become the “key” to success at Copenhagen, on the developing side, but the world’s most populous nation is fighting back against proposals, in part developed by the Australian Prime Minister, which would redefine China’s status as a developing nation, oblige it to meet tougher targets and cut its access to the billions in aid from the developed world to fight climate change. The proposals also effectively weaken the binding agreements under the Kyoto Protocol.China, in a co-ordinated effort, has decided to put responsibility for emissions cuts back on Europe and the US and to declare its targets of 40 to 45 per cent reductions as “the upper limit”, or the maximum achievable.

Using the backlash from the developing world at Copenhagen, China is marshalling its argument that the West created the greenhouse gas problem and built its wealth upon coal-fired industry. Now, says China, it has 150 million in poverty, millions in regions who suffer harsh winter conditions and their right to develop and simple comfort and sustenance cannot be denied. (source)

Meanwhile, the EU has begun the global socialism at the core of the Copenhagen summit:

European Union nations have agreed to give 7.2 billion euros to help developing nations tackle climate change, the Swedish EU presidency announced Friday.

“The EU total is equal to 2.4 billion euros per year,” over the next three years, with voluntary pledges coming in from all 27 EU member states, Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt said after a two-day EU summit in Brussels.

The ‘fast start’ money is Europe’s contribution to helping the developing world to adapt to global warming over the next three years and to encourage the ongoing UN climate change conference in Copenhagen to do more. (source)

Just a drop in the ocean compared to what they’re hoping for…

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , , ,

Rudd-maths: 114 – 14 = "50 or 60"

11 December, 2009 by

Bottom of the class

Bottom of the class

Kind of like Rudd-speak, Rudd-maths is maths in another universe. Rudd-maths is fine with the mainstream media – they just wave it through. If it had been from a Liberal, however, they would have been all over it like a rash. This all relates to Australia sending a frankly ridiculous delegation of 114 (one hundred and fourteen) to Copenhagen, including 7 media advisers and a “personal photographer,” compared to just 70-odd for the UK. Nice work if you can get it.

But in The Australian, Kevin Rudd tries to blame the huge number on the states:

A provisional list published in The Australian today contains the names and details of 114 Australian representatives, compared with just 71 for the United Kingdom.

Mr Rudd did not dispute the reported number, saying officials from the state and territory governments were part of Australia’s delegation.

He claimed the Australian delegation was larger than the British contingent because the UK did not have state governments.

“We extend an invitation to (officials at the state level) and they come,” Mr Rudd told Fairfax Radio today.

But the provisional list contains details of only 14 representatives of state government, plus one delegate from the Australian Local Government Association.

The Prime Minister said the “core Australian government delegation” was “probably in the order of about 50 or 60”.

So there’s a huge hole in the maths there, Kev, in case you haven’t noticed. Take away the state representatives and you have 100. So where on earth do you get “50 or 60”? But hey, the mainstream media don’t bother about such trivia – except when it’s the Liberals, naturally.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Copenhagen – Day 4: China vs US

11 December, 2009 by

Day 4

Day 4

As was to be expected, the climate talks are boiling down to a China vs US punch-up. Yesterday, the US negotiator was blunt about the need for China to play ball, and today China has hit back, calling for more emissions cuts from the US (and more money, naturally):

China’s top climate envoy called on President Barack Obama to increase a U.S. offer to cut greenhouse gases, and said it would discuss a 2050 emissions goal only if rich nations offered more cash and carbon cuts.

Xie Zhenhua said developed nations must commit to cuts of “at least 40 percent” by 2020 from 1990 levels. He said Beijing was aiming for a legally binding treaty from the December 7-18 talks, although hosts Denmark have said that will be impossible.

A successful outcome from the summit largely depends on agreement between the United States and China, which together generate 40 percent of global carbon emissions.

But negotiations have been bogged down for months by rifts between developed and developing nations over who should cut emissions, by how much, and who should pay.

“I do hope that President Obama can bring a concrete contribution to Copenhagen,” Xie said in a rare interview.

Asked if he meant something more than Obama has proposed so far, a 3 percent cut from 1990 levels by 2020, Xie said: “Yes.”

“The whole world is watching the United States, and as long as they take on a good leadership role, then I think that we can make a large step forward in combating climate change.” (source)

40% by 2020 on 1990 levels equates to economic suicide, just sayin’. Meanwhile, in Faifax fantasy land, the Sydney Morning Herald prints the story of a 17-year-old living in the Solomon Islands, who pleads that her home is being flooded “by climate change”:

I am 17 years old. For my entire life, countries have been negotiating a climate agreement. My future is in front of me. In the year that I was born, amid an atmosphere of hope, the world formed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to solve the climate crisis.

This week I told negotiators at the main plenary session of the UN Climate Change Conference that time is running out and my generation needs them to work together to come up with the agreement that we deserve.

…

Sea-level rise and unprecedented storm surges caused by climate change are already affecting communities across the Pacific and are expected to get significantly worse if climate change is not immediately and adequately tackled.

Consequently, small island governments, like my own, are asking the global community to prevent global warming above 1.5 degrees. This means a global emission stabilisation target of below 350 parts per million of carbon dioxide equivalent in the atmosphere.

Maybe she hasn’t seen this graph, which shows sea levels rising at a constant rate, which they have done since the end of the last Ice Age, and which are actually slowing down:

Can't hide the decline

Can't hide the decline

Sarah Palin speaks the truth about the whole Copenhagen gab-fest:

SARAH Palin all but declared global warming a hoax yesterday when the former US vice-presidential candidate urged Barack Obama to boycott the Copenhagen climate change conference and stand up to the “radical environment movement”.

The former Alaska governor and possible 2012 presidential contender seized upon leaked emails from climate change scientists at the University of East Anglia. The scientists have been accused by sceptics of falsifying data to make the case that the phenomenon is real and man-made, something they deny.

The scandal has become a cause celebre among climate change deniers and sceptics. A group of Republican politicians has vowed to fly to Copenhagen next week to argue that the threat from global warming is overblown and too costly to act on.

Writing in The Washington Post, which was criticised from the Left for allowing her to argue her case [gee, that sounds like an attempt at censorship. Why would that be? The Left are always in favour of full and open debate, aren’t they? – Ed], Mrs Palin said: “The revelation of appalling actions by so-called climate change experts allows the American public to finally understand the concerns so many of us have articulated on this issue.” (source)

Well said.

And in other news, an wholly undeserving person receives a totally discredited prize somewhere and makes long speech. Yawn.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,
«Previous Page
Next Page»