Our Changing Globe

Archive for the ‘gloabal warming’ Category

Major outcome of Durban climate talks

www.prokerala.com12/11/11

Major outcome of Durban climate talks…The main outcome of the Durban talks:…* To extend the Kyoto Protocol: To extend for anot…* Long-Term Cooperation (LCA) actions: These are t…* Green climate fund (GCF): During the …

Durban climate change talks: a deal on hold | Environment …

www.guardian.co.uk12/10/11

Progress at the COP17 climate talks in South Africa are paused but some fear that the delay will mean they run out of time.

"A new global climate deal has been struck after being brought back from the brink of disaster by three powerful women politicians in a 20-minute, "huddle to save the planet".

Anybody that has read the Climate 2 emails knows that the whole global warming thing is simply a rip-off.

Durban

And the Durban thing is even worse, because poor (hand-out and non-producing) countries are demanding that richer (hard working countries) subsidize them much more!

Much like many countries in Europe that want Germany to continue to bail them out.

And what arrogance to believe that, "We can save the planet", which has existed for billions of years without them!

What Happened At The Conference

A major crisis was provoked shortly after 3am on Sunday (December 11, 2011) morning when angry EU delegates clashed with China and India over the legal form of a potential new treaty.

The EU plan to bind all countries to cuts was close to collapse after India inserted the words "legal outcome" at the last minute into the negotiating text.

But EU climate commissioner Connie Hedegaard, backed by UK energy secretary Chris Huhne said:

"It would have made the EU plan legally meaningless and would have forced the EU to walk away effectively collapsing the negotiations".

With many ministers exhausted after nearly six days and three nights of intense discussions, Hedegaard told the 194 countries in Durban:

"We need clarity. We need to commit. The EU has shown patience for many years. We are almost ready to be alone in a second commitment period to the Kyoto protocol".

"We don’t ask too much of the world that after this second period all countries will be legally bound. Let’s try and have a protocol by 2018".

The Indian environment minister, Jayanthi Natarajan, responded fiercely that:

"Developing countries are being asked to sign up to a deal before they know what was in the proposed treaty, and whether it would be fair to poor nations".

"Am I to write a blank cheque and sign away the livelihoods and sustainability of 1.2 billion Indians, without even knowing what the EU roadmap contains?".

"I wonder if this is an agenda to shift the blame on to countries who are not responsible for climate change. I am told that India will be blamed. Please don’t hold us hostage. We will give up the principle of equity".

And China’s chief negotiator, Xie Zhenhua, lambasted the EU in a passionate speech, saying:

"Who gives you the right to tell us what to do?"

The Huddle

With tempers rising and the talks minutes from being abandoned, the chair, South African foreign minister Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, ordered China, India, the US, Britain, France, Sweden, Gambia, Brazil and Poland to meet in a small group or "huddle".

And surrounded by a crowd of almost 100 delegates on the floor of the hall, they talked quietly among themselves to try to reach a new form of words acceptable to all.

The Compromise

It was however, Brazil’s chief negotiator, lawyer Luis Figueres, who came up with the compromise,

"Substitute ‘an agreed outcome’, with ‘legal force for legal outcome’".

Causing a EU lawyer to respond,

"Yes, it’s much stronger; effectively meaning, a legally binding agreement".

"Yes, yes," cheered the crowd of onlookers around the politicians, and the talks were back on track.

Two hours later the 16-day talks were effectively over, with a commitment by all countries to accept binding emission cuts by 2020.

As part of the package of measures agreed, a new climate fund will be set up, carbon markets will be expanded and countries will be able to earn money by protecting forests.

The Stupidity

Chris Huhne (UK energy secretary) hailed the conclusion of the talks as,

"A triumph of European co-operation".

"We have taken a significant step forward and this will give business confidence and stop us locking in a whole generation of high-carbon technology.

And Poor Countries?

But Martin Khor, director of the intergovernmental South Centre in Geneva, said poor countries would be obliged to cut emissions proportionally more than the rich.

"It’s like the starving will be made to give up half their small amount of food but the rich just a bit".

The Rabid Ignorant And Naive Left

"Negotiators have sent a clear message to the world’s hungry: let them eat carbon", said Celine Charveriat, director of campaigns and advocacy for Oxfam.

"Governments must immediately turn their attention to raising the ambition of their emissions cuts targets and filling the Green Climate Fund. Unless countries ratchet up their emissions cuts urgently we could still be in store for a 10-year timeout on the action we need to stay under two degrees of temperature increase".

And Greenpeace International director Kumi Naidoo said:

"The chance of averting catastrophic climate change is slipping through our hands with every passing year that nations fail to agree on a rescue plan for the planet".

And Michael Jacobs, of the Grantham climate research institute of climate change:

"This will force governments to admit their current pledges to cut emissions are not enough to achieve 2C rise and will have to be strengthened".

Nnimmo Bassey, chair of Friends of the Earth International, said:

"Delaying real action till 2020 is a crime of global proportions. This means the world is on track to a 4C temperature rise, a death sentence for Africa, small island states and the poor and vulnerable worldwide. The richest 1% of the world have decided that it is acceptable to sacrifice the 99%"

The Bottom Line

The whole thing is such a rip-off, but these NGO’s would have no raison d’être without these forums; so perhaps their responses should be viewed in that light.

If their agenda is really similar to Obama’s, which is equalization (redistribution) of wealth, then at least say so, but please don’t jump on the burned out Global Warming wagon.

Climategate 2: The Scandal Continues | Competitive Enterprise …

cei.org11/22/11

Climategate 2: The Scandal Continues. New Emails Reveal Scientific Conspiracy and Cover-up. By Nicole Ciandella. November 22, 2011. Print · Email. Washington, DC, November 22, 2011 – The 2009 Climategate scandal was re-ignited …

AP on Climategate 2 « Don Surber

blogs.dailymail.com11/22/11

AP on Climategate 2. November 22, 2011 by Don Surber. Readers know that Climategate showed what a bunch of lying frauds the climatologists are. They lied. Science died. If their theory held water, they would not have to lie about it. …

A new batch of around 5,000 emails were released anonymously yesterday, and they clearly show how a great number of scientists continue to try and mislead the public, and they make clear their desire to politicize the whole "global warming" issue.

You can download the new ClimateGate emails, but it’s a relatively big file, 173mb.

Three Obvious Themes Stand Out

Prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions.

These scientists view global warming as a political "cause" rather than a balanced scientific inquiry.

Many of the scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

Abuse Of Scientific Transparency

A defining characteristic of science is the open sharing of scientific data, theories and procedures so that independent parties, and especially skeptics of a particular theory or hypothesis, can replicate and validate asserted experiments or observations.

But the email exchanges between Climategate scientists show a concerted effort to hide rather than to disseminate underlying evidence and procedures.

Phil Jones, who is a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), wrote in one newly released email.

"I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI (Freedom of Information) Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process".

And in another email.

"Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get and has to be well hidden, I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data".

ClimateGate 1.0

The original ClimateGate emails contained similar evidence of destroying information and data that the public would naturally assume would be available according to freedom of information principles.

Jones wrote to Penn State University scientist Michael Mann in an email released in Climategate 1.0

"Mike, can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 (UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 4th Assessment)?".

"Keith will do likewise. We will be getting Caspar Ammann to do likewise. I see that CA (the Climate Audit Web site) claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!"

The Politicization

The new emails also reveal the scientists’ attempts to politicize the debate and advance the predetermined outcomes.

Jonathan Overpeck, the coordinating lead author for the IPCC’s most recent climate assessment wrote.

"The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guide what’s included and what is left out of IPCC reports".

And Michael Mann wrote in another email.

"I gave up on (Georgia Institute of Technology climate professor) Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but its not helping the cause".

and very damning,

"I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose skeptical scientist Steve McIntyre".

ClimateGate 2 Highlights The Lack Of Scientific Evidence

Peter Thorne of the UK Met Office wrote.

"Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary. I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run".

An Even Greater Furore Is Needed

There are certain to be a far greater number of revelations released as more and more emails are read, and the scandal will grow, but it needs to grow into something huge.

The offending scientists need to be fired, and if not fired, they need to forced to return their research grants,.

They were paid in good faith but failed to respond in kind.

A Related Issue

Students Co-Authored Key Global Warming Reports!

A harshly critical new expose on the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change claims that reports were often written by graduate students with either little, or no experience in the field.