Pages

Showing posts with label Cancun. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cancun. Show all posts

December 20, 2010

Freedom survives climate conference


FROM-JDNEWS.com

Despite profuse self-congratulations and a Kumbaya spirit, the global warming summit in Cancun, Mexico, didn’t much advance the cause of climate alarmism. It may even have set back the movement.

The 1997 Kyoto Protocol, whose Draconian mandated cuts in greenhouse gas emissions expire in 2012, wasn’t extended or replaced, and nothing else legally binding was agreed upon by the assembled 190-plus nations. The United States never signed Kyoto, as most nations did.

Cancun got off to a rocky start two weeks ago when Japan, a signatory, declared it would never agree to another Kyoto treaty. Apparently no one else was willing, either.

The Asia News Network reported that Cancun’s failures make it more likely developed countries will shift from Kyoto’s binding regime “to a voluntary system in which each country only makes pledges on how much it will reduce its emissions.”

Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists lamented, “Fundamentally there’s not consensus coming out of here on the long-term way forward in terms of the legal regime.”

This is good news for anyone who regards catastrophic manmade global warming to be a hyped nonthreat, and for anyone who cherishes liberty and economic freedom and is repulsed by transnational mandates.

Coming a year after gridlock at the U.N.’s previous worldwide climate conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, Cancun’s delegates were intent on at least the appearance of agreement. Their consensus was more posturing than substance.

No firm proposals were agreed on for nations to reduce emissions by even the lowered amounts summit planners sought. Moreover, it was left to each nation to decide how much and how soon to reduce. A system was agreed upon to monitor, report and verify emissions, but without enforcement provisions.

A committee was agreed upon to provide technology for developing nations. But delegates avoided deciding how to protect developed nations’ intellectual property rights, a concern that inhibits sharing.

Similarly, there was no agreement on how much each rich nation will pay into the still-empty so-called Green Fund to subsidize poorer nations. Delegates set up an account for the World Bank to manage, hoping to receive up to $100 billion a year promised (but not yet delivered) by nations last year. We suspect there won’t be a mad rush to cut checks anytime soon — if ever.

Agreement was reached on a plan for developed nations to pay developing nations to soak up carbon dioxide using plants. Again, delegates backed off a proposal for faux carbon markets to finance the scheme. Everyone agreed to get together next year in South Africa to see if they can agree then on how to make any of this stuff legally binding.

Environmental activists were more candid than delegates. “The negotiations in the future,” said China’s negotiator, “will continue to be difficult.”

December 14, 2010

STOP THE PRESSES !

Sanity in the Main Stream Media



FROM-Pittsburgh Tribune

Loons in Cancun

Another costly United Nations conference on wealth redistribution under the guise of climate change has come to a predictable close.

"Experts" trotted out disputed "science" to buttress predictions of climate cataclysms. Notes British columnist Christopher Booker in The Telegraph, the same United Kingdom National Weather Service computer that predicted a four-degree rise in global temperatures over the next 50 years also "has consistently got every one of its winter and summer forecasts hopelessly wrong" over the past three years.

Climate cluckers couldn't come to terms on arbitrary emissions cuts. But they did come up with a "Green Climate Fund" to shuffle $100 billion in aid by 2020 to poor nations. No details yet on how deeply the duly concerned intend to reach into Uncle Sam's wallet.

What unfolded over two weeks was more of a circus than any meaningful scientific consensus on complex global weather patterns. The direction was set with an opening prayer to Ixchel, the Mayan mood goddess.

And how strange that no one mentioned the "carbon footprint" left by thousands of pampered delegates, who didn't get to Cancun by paddling canoes.

From this nonsense Mr. Booker derives a fitting conclusion. "The global warming scare may have been fun for the children while it lasted, but the time has come for the joke to be declared well and truly over."

December 13, 2010

Bureaucrats Swindle Greens In Cancun

FROM-The American Interest


WALTER RUSSELL MEAD

The climate conference in Cancun was a turning point for the world’s greens. There were two possible outcomes. One was a total political meltdown in Cancun that would have been hideously embarrassing in the short run but that in the long term would have cleared the way for more hopeful approaches to carbon issues. The other was a cobbled together pseudo-deal of some kind that would have avoided short term embarrassment but over the long run would doom the greens to a future of frustration and futility.

Outcome one would have helped the planet; outcome two helps the bureaucratic rent seekers and process junkies of the world’s diplomatic establishment.

Guess who won?

As green negotiators in Cancun ended their embarrassing two-week junket (videos of partying bureaucrats did not go down well with voters in a northern hemisphere freezing in an early winter), it’s clear that the bureaucrats did what bureaucrats do: they kept a ‘process’ (job-creating bureaucratic gravy train) alive while doing little or nothing about the problem they were supposed to solve.

read entire article here

December 10, 2010

The Gore Effect Nature’s Little Joke

FROM-Tuscon Citizen



by Jonathan DuHamel


The Gore Effect strikes the Cancun Climate conference which experienced six straight days of record low temperatures. The “Gore Effect” is a tongue-in-cheek correlation between appearances of Al Gore to talk about global warming and the occurrence of unusually cold weather at that place and time. The term has subsequently applied to any conference on global warming that experiences unusually cold weather.

The Gore Effect was first noticed in January, 2004, when Al Gore visited Boston and New York to deliver a global-warming panic speech, and bitter cold weather came with him. Boston experienced its lowest temperatures in almost fifty years, while in New York it was -40 degrees with wind chill.

In October, 2006, Gore visited New Zealand, touting his film An Inconvenient Truth. New Zealand newspapers report an unusually cold October that left Southland dairy farmers struggling.

When Gore visited Australia in November, 2006, the Gore Effect struck again. It snowed in Queensland in November for the first time in at least 65 years. “Ski resort operators gazed at the snow in amazement. Parents took children out of school and headed for the mountains. Cricketers scurried amid bullets of hail as Melbourne residents traded lunchtime tales of the incredible cold.” (The Age).

Back in the U.S., in the L.A. area where Gore has been nominated for an Oscar, snow fell in West L.A. and Malibu. The last snowfall recorded at Los Angeles International Airport was in January 1962, according to the National Weather Service.

Some other examples:

First October snow since 1922 blankets London as global warming bill debated – October29, 2008.

Al Gore will be in Melbourne on 13 July 2009 for the launch of Safe Climate Australia. Melbourne is set for more icy weather from the current cold snap, with some temperatures set to drop below zero.

The Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality hearing scheduled for Wednesday, February 14, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. in room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building has been postponed due to inclement weather. The hearing is entitled Climate Change: Are Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Human Activities Contributing to a Warming of the Planet?

Mr Gore visited Italy last week, precisely Milan (Northern Italy). He gave a speech on his usual theme: the globe is warming, there’s a lot of warning signs, we shouldn’t be so foolish to dismiss them, we must act now, etc. Outside the hall, it was snowing and snowing. Dec. 2006

Al Gore visits Harvard, October, 2008, “the temperature in Cambridge is 44.5 °F. Tonight, it is predicted to drop to 34 °F, close to the record low of 28 °F measured in 1940.

You can find many more examples if you Google “gore effect.”

Read a satirical “scientific” paper that discusses the theoretical basis for the Gore Effect: Recent research has shown that the mere presence of Al Gore is able to reduce ambient temperatures by approximately 27.6°C. This phenomenon is termed the “Al Gore Effect.” Various theories about the physical mechanism of this phenomenon, its dangers, and its potential usefulness in fighting global warming are discussed. The paper cautions Mr. Gore to not overuse his powers, lest he cause another glacial epoch.

Wasting Away in Margaritaville


FROM-The American Spectator
By Andrew B. Wilson

Actually, a few people did show up for the UN climate change conference in Cancún. To be precise, there were about 15,000 delegates from 194 countries. But no one of any importance bothered to come -- no leaders from the free or the un-free world. It was left to the totally daft Ted ("I'm not chased by demons") Turner to try to keep everyone from falling fast asleep and forgetting all about global warming.

Thank god for small fiascoes. They are so much better than the big ones.

What a difference a year makes.

At this time last year, the lunatics were in full command of the asylum. Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and a supporting cast of thousands were jetting off to Copenhagen to swear their undying allegiance to the idea that it is necessary to save the planet from the scourge of human life. That would be human life, most particularly, as it is lived here in the United States and other parts of the world that have not yet gotten around to pulling the plug on capitalism and moving on to a more enlightened way of organizing production and redistributing material wealth.

"Climate change is a religion for them, so there was no way they were going to miss this," said one GOP aide of the huge contingent of Democratic representatives and senators who boarded Air Force and commercial jets for Copenhagen. "This is their Hajj."

Never mind that the "Climategate" scandal had only recently exposed how climate scientists working for the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had conspired to quash evidence contrary to the theory of man-made global warming. Paying no attention to that, Obama began his speech to the UN Climate Summit Conference in Copenhagen with these words:

Good morning. It is an honor for me to join this distinguished group of leaders from nations around the world. We come here in Copenhagen because climate change poses a grave a growing danger to our people. All of you would not be here unless you -- like me -- were convinced that this danger is real. It is not fiction, it is science. Unchecked, climate change will pose unacceptable risks to our security, our economies, and our planet….

That's why I come here today -- not to talk, but to act.
Well, actually, nothing came of the Copenhagen conference. There was no global climate deal. But so what? The point is, the president rubbed shoulders with just about all of world's leaders at the Copenhagen conference -- everyone from Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao to Indian premier Manmohan Singh, Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, and French President Nicolas Sarkozy. From Copenhagen Obama flew on to Oslo to collect the Nobel Peace Prize and give another speech filled with intimations of his own omniscience.

That was COP-15, as the Copenhagen conference is called in UN lingo. It was the 15th annual Council of Parties since COP-1, the Berlin Climate Summit held in 1995.

Heads of state are conspicuous by the absence from COP-16, as the Cancún confab is called. No fewer than 119 heads of state signed up for Copenhagen. Even Robert Mugabe, the deranged president of Zimbabwe, felt compelled to put in an appearance. As far as I can tell from COP-16's blog site, Mexican President Felipe Calderón, was the only head of state in attendance this year. Nor did any leading U.S. Democrats come down to soak up the sun or to add some much needed spice to the warmed-over warnings of global warming being served to the participants. Even alarmist-in-chief Al Gore was a no-show.

Calderón did not help the cause by giving a thuddingly boring opening address. Calling on negotiators in Cancún to make progress in the interest of their children and grandchildren, he said that the "eyes of the world" were focused on the meeting. In an audience composed of mid-level UN officials and apparatchiks like Jane Davidson, the Welsh environmental minister, I doubt that there was a single soul who didn't know full well that the eyes of the world were glazed over at the thought of one more global warming summit.

Thus it was left to always surprising Ted Turner -- author of the autobiography Call Me Joe -- to try to inject some life into the conference. Turner, a longtime supporter of the president, said that Obama had made "a big mistake" by ramming through Obamacare rather than cap-and-trade. As he put it in his inimitable way, "If we don't stop global warming, we'll be extinct, and then we'll be really sorry."

And this raises a further subject for honest wonderment. What a difference a year has made in the life of our 44th president.

A year ago, he was flying over to Europe to give speeches and accept a Nobel Prize. Today he is sulking in his tent and lashing out at critics both left and right. He even claims that he is the victim of a "hostage" situation. He is upset that the Republicans seem to have hijacked the bus carrying the clear majority of the American people and are using that to make outrageous demands. Pobre hombre! It seems that he has come face-to-face with the realization that he really doesn't know what he's supposed to be doing as the leader of the United States and the free world.

Hypocrisy alive and well at Cancun climate conference

FROM-The Daily Caller
By Amanda Carey

From November 29 to December 10, delegates from 194 countries gathered in sunny Cancun, Mexico to “lay the ghost of Copenhagen to rest,” as one dignitary put it. After last year’s chaotic, disastrous and worthless climate change conference in Copenhagen, the goal this year was simple: avoid further embarrassment.

The focus has been on hashing out details for a global climate fund, extending the Kyoto Protocol beyond 2012, and establishing an official agreement among developed countries to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions by about 40 percent by 2020.

But in the middle of all the global-warming demagoguery and calls for developed nations to shell out $100 billion per year by 2020 in climate reparations to help less-developed countries cope with the unfair burden of climate change, one thing has very obviously not changed: the hypocrisy.

Yes, hypocrisy was present in Cancun just as it was in Copenhagen in 2009, Ponzan in 2008, Bali in 2007, and the many other climate change summit cities before them. As hundreds of officials travel in gas-guzzling jets and carbon-dioxide emitting cars to the conference site and stay in luxurious, high electricity-consuming resorts, the carbon footprint of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is ironic, to say the least.

The unbearable spectacle of it all is what prompted one climate scholar to stop attending the conferences all together. Chris Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute and author of the newly-released “Power Grab: How Obama’s Green Policies Will Steal Your Freedom and Bankrupt America,” told The Daily Caller he hasn’t been to the annual U.N. climate change conference since it was held in Montreal in 2005.

“The ritual teary-eyed Europeans declaring a never-ending series of ‘historic agreements,’ which were no such thing, became too farcical to continue attending,” said Horner. “The enterprise is pompously and risibly dedicated in equal parts to wealth redistribution and self-perpetuation, as a platform for, and along the way, engaging in visceral anti-Americanism.”

According to The Telegraph, the carbon footprint of the Cancun conference is five times larger than it was for the 2009 conference in Copenhagen, despite the fact that attendance this year was significantly lower. The figure of the carbon footprint released by the Mexican government is 25,000 tons.

The plan is to offset the conference’s carbon footprint by protecting forests and planting trees in the surrounding poor areas.

The Telegraph article also pointed out that although recycling bins were located throughout the lavish Moon Palace hotel, the closest actual recycling facility was hundreds of miles away.

Read more: Here

December 9, 2010

Global warming ideology still on top

FROM-Washington Times


The science has crumbled, but too much money backs the scareBy Tom Harris and Bryan Leyland

"Climate change" has suffered significant setbacks in the past year. First there was Climategate. Then the Copenhagen conference ended without binding agreements on either mitigation or adaptation. This was followed quickly by Glaciergate, Amazongate, Kiwigate and serious challenges to the credibility of Rajendra K. Pachauri, chairman of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Next, professor Phil Jones of the United Kingdom's Climatic Research Unit (and lead author of the IPCC chapter on temperatures) admitted that there has been no statistically significant warming for 15 years. Then "hockey stick" promoters finally acknowledged that there indeed was a Medieval Warm Period.

These events, coupled with the economic downturn and the education efforts of climate realists - those who take a balanced perspective of climate change - have impacted public opinion. Now, a significant fraction of the public regards the past century's warming as primarily natural and a human-induced global-warming catastrophe as improbable. So public support for expensive greenhouse-gas-reduction policies has eroded.

Republican climate skeptics have taken control of the U.S. House of Representatives, thereby killing any chance of federal "cap-and-trade" legislation for now. Republican congressional leaders also have vowed to use every trick in the book to block Environmental Protection Agency carbon-dioxide (CO2) regulations scheduled to start on Jan. 2. And, not surprisingly, the United Nations' 2010 Climate Change Conference in Cancun, Mexico, is failing, with Mother Nature helping to dampen warming fears as an early winter sets in across the Northern Hemisphere.

Some commentators tell us that this is the beginning of the end of the climate scare. More likely, it is just the end of the beginning. If this were a hockey game, the first period would have just ended with a couple of quick goals by climate realists. But alarmists built up a 5-0 lead while realists were still learning to play. The score is now 5-2, with most of the game yet to go. While it is appropriate for realists to revel in their late-period success, it is vastly premature to celebrate.

Through the tireless work of hundreds of thousands of mostly unpaid activists, aided by unquestioning journalists, grant-seeking scientists, pandering politicians, opportunistic or naive industries and well-meaning but misinformed citizens, climate campaigners made "stopping global warming" a cause celebre. The warmists' message was pounded out, free of charge, daily for years: "We in the West are causing a planetary emergency and the poor of the world are the primary victims." Celebrities, leading scientists and charismatic mega-fauna such as the polar bear were recruited as the faces of responsible environmental stewardship.

As a result, massive donations from left-wing foundations poured in to groups focused on promoting alarm. With unprecedented resources at their disposal, climate campaigners hired communications and legal exerts to help craft long-term, often ruthless strategies to sway public opinion and frighten industry away from effectively defending itself. Meanwhile, throughout the 1980s and '90s, nature cooperated. Global warming, later to become "climate change," was ready for prime time.

It wasn't long before scientifically illiterate politicians faced intense pressure to "do something to save the planet." And so, instead of helping educate the public about climate realities or even seeking qualified alternative opinions, they capitulated, signing international agreements prescribing crippling restrictions on "global warming pollution." Western governments then diverted billions of dollars of public money to help finance climate alarmism, resulting in the creation of countless climate-change public- and private-sector jobs. These bureaucrats then rewarded activists with yet more grants and donations, which were used to push governments and industry to do still more.

Today, climate alarmism is de rigueur "science" in virtually all public schools, colleges and universities. Most mainstream media, corporations, even churches and essentially all environmental organizations promote the now politically correct view of human-caused climate change. Aside from President Vaclav Klaus of the Czech Republic, not a single prominent world leader contests the hypothesis that humanity's CO2 emissions are causing dangerous global warming. The fact that the basic science behind the scare is crumbling appears to have no impact on these groups. Instead, science is cherry-picked to prop up public policy that has more to do with pleasing vested interests and satisfying social ideology than protecting the environment.

There simply is too much money and political capital, and too many reputations are at stake for alarmists to back down. After their late first-period letdown, environmental activists have stepped up their campaign to keep governments and media from falling off the climate-change bandwagon. Literally hundreds of millions of dollars are still being funneled into promoting alarm and futile solutions. In the third quarter of this year, the McKnight Foundation alone donated $26 million to the Climate Works Foundation, a group originated in 2008 with roughly a half-billion dollars in start-up funding.

As a result, the worldwide climate movement continues to enjoy significant successes. For example, Australia's new prime minister has just called for a countrywide price on CO2. Across the world, "climate-safe energy solutions" such as wind turbines still receive billions in subsidies. This has led to soaring energy costs in many jurisdictions, where dangerous brownouts and blackouts await if such programs aren't canceled quickly and replaced by lower-cost and more effective solutions to the need for more power.

As we enter into the second period of the climate game, no one should be under the illusion that victory will be quick. Although they are still behind, climate realists finally have earned some respect. But we can be sure alarmists are strategizing to bring the contest back under their control. Now the game is going to get really interesting.

Tom Harris is the executive director of the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC). Bryan Leyland is ICSC's founding secretary and energy issues adviser.

December 8, 2010

FROM-NRO

The U.N.’s climate summit is the same thing all over again.

 
The poet Edna St. Vincent-Millay is reported to have quipped that “history isn’t one damn thing after another — it’s the same damn thing over and over again.” The world is about to be reminded of this at the current international climate-change summit, which is grinding into its second week in Cancun. It is worth recalling the back story to this increasingly obvious farce.

Back in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the cosmopolitan elites were full of talk about something called the “New International Economic Order,” which was facilitated by the “North-South dialogue.” The premise of the New International Economic Order, as explained at the time by West Germany’s socialist chancellor Willy Brandt, was that there needed to be “a large-scale transfer of resources to developing countries” and “a start of some major reforms in the international economic system,” including international regulatory and perhaps even taxing authority.

Naturally, the United Nations was at the center of this crusade, and the harebrains at Turtle Bay concocted a “North-South Summit” in the fall of 1981 where all the world’s leaders would gather to decide just how much cash the wealthy nations would fork over to less-developed nations. The Wall Street Journal accurately described the meeting as the developing world’s “most spectacular reach for the American wallet.”

The location of that hopeful summit? Cancun.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the U.N.’s wealth redistributionpalooza: Ronaldus Magnus showed up and stomped on the whole thing. President Reagan told the kleptocrats:

There is a propaganda campaign in wide circulation that would have the world believe that capitalist United States is the cause of world hunger and poverty. . . . Others mistake compassion for development and claim massive transfers of wealth somehow miraculously will produce new well-being. And still others confuse development with collectivism.
Reagan went on extol open markets, private enterprise, individual initiative, low taxes, and limited government as the true path to prosperity for the developing world. The fastest-growing nations, Reagan observed, are the ones that provide the most economic freedom to their people. The developing world, Fortune magazine observed, is “accustomed to lectur[ing] others, not to being lectured at themselves.” The news media and diplomats from the developing world immediately pronounced that Reagan had “isolated” himself at Cancun, and blasted American intransigence. But the whole “North-South Dialogue” proceeded to fade away.

The redistributionist impulse is irrepressible, however, and was reborn just a few years later with the coming of the climate campaign. With the collapse last year in Copenhagen of any treaty that caps greenhouse-gas emissions, the U.N. movable feast is left with its old standby — wealth redistribution — as the only remaining item on the agenda for its next meeting, which is why it is fitting the meeting is taking place in Cancun.

The climate campaigners don’t even bother to disguise their main agenda anymore. The German newspaper Neue Zurcher Zeitung observed two weeks ago: “The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.” What prompted this conclusion was a candid admission from a U.N. official closely involved with the climate negotiations, German economist Ottmar Edenhoffer: “But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”

This Cancun meeting ought to end like the last one, with the kleptocrats sent packing with copies of the Collected Economic Wisdom of the Gipper as the best prescription for dealing with climate change (or any other development problem). Obviously, the Obama administration is congenitally opposed to embracing Reaganomics and is likely to sign on to provide the billions in aid that were pledged tentatively last year in Copenhagen. But does anyone believe, in this age of budget deficits and austerity, both here and in Europe, that the checks will actually get cut? Unlikely, but that’s good news for the climate campaign, because it assures that they’ll meet again somewhere next year, which is the ultimate diplomatic imperative.

— Steven F. Hayward is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and an adjunct professor at the John M. Ashbrook Center at Ashland University.

Henny-Penny Skips Cancun

FROM-The American Spectator
By Peter Hannaford

"I didn't go," was the curt voice-mail message. It was from Henny-Penny, founder and Recording Secretary of The Holy Order of The Sky is Falling (THOOTSIF). I knew she was referring to the big two-week U.N. Climate Change conference in Cancun. Consumed with curiosity, I called her right away,.

ME: I thought you were packed and ready to go.

H-P: I was, but the more I heard about it, the more I was convinced it would be a waste of time and money.

ME: How so?

H-P: The true believers had high hopes that after the Copenhagen fiasco last year we would finally get an international treaty to put caps on carbon emissions, but it wasn't meant to be. The collapse of President Obama's cap-and-trade plan and signals from China and India that they would never sign such a treaty did it in.

ME: So what will come out of Cancun?

H-P: Substantively, nothing. For the 15,000 true believers, most of whom are on U.N. or national expense accounts, it will have been two weeks of sunbathing and mariachi music.

ME: Does this mean you think the sky is no longer falling?

H-P: Oh, it's still falling, but more slowly. The United Kingdom's Meteorological Office issued a report just before the conference saying that the rate of global warning over the past decade has been slower than it was in the 1980s and '90s. Still, the scientists predict that global temperatures will rise by 4 degrees Centigrade by 2060 which would wipe out much agricultural production.

ME: How can they predict that with certainty when a professional weather man or woman can't predict next week's weather with certainty?

H-P: I don't know, but I do know I am disheartened by the news that we haven't had a big hurricane in the U.S. in the last five years.

ME: You hoped for the death and destruction that big hurricanes bring?

H-P: Heavens no. I'm disheartened because it calls into question the infallibility of our Pontiff, Al Gore. He predicted devastating hurricanes every year and they didn't come. I've been a believer in Pontiff Infallibility. Now I'm beginning to doubt it.

ME: I've been telling you for years that your Pontiff's formidable knowledge consists mostly of hot air. For example, he tirelessly promoted that error-filled movie of his, "An Inconvenient Truth," so that many gullible school teachers showed it to their students without critiquing it.

H-P: I'm beginning to rethink our whole strategy on global warming. The emphasis until now has been on limiting carbon emissions. A new study released by the Wall Street Journal says what governments should do is recognize that no amount of wind-farm and solar-panel subsidies will get us more than a minor percentage of electrical power production over the next 50 years. It says that approach will result in us paying a lot more for energy. Instead, our government should reward private R&D that creates ways to lower the cost of producing clean energy from fossil fuels, then give away the intellectual property so other countries can us the new technology.

ME: Congratulations. You're beginning to sound rational, just like those scientists who have long doubted the global warming catastrophe theory of the your True Believer friends.

H-P: I want to see our government stop doing what doesn't work and find new ways to keep the sky from falling so that we have cleaner energy and air. Meanwhile, I'm going to do what I do best, which is to relax on my nest and lay eggs.

Cancun's Climate Crock

FROM-American Thinker
By Brian Sussman


It began with a prayer to the Mayan moon goddess, and it has quickly devolved into a junk science circus.

Delegates to the United Nation's Framework Convention on Climate Change in Cancun, Mexico were greeted by the Convention's Executive Secretary, Christiana Figueres, who prayed to the goddess Ixchel.

Calling Ixchel "the goddess of reason, creativity and weaving," Figueres prayed, "May she inspire you -- because today, you are gathered in Cancun to weave together the elements of a solid response to climate change, using both reason and creativity as your tools."

Figueres continued, "Excellencies, the goddess Ixchel would probably tell you that a tapestry is the result of the skilful [sic] interlacing of many threads. I am convinced that twenty years from now, we will admire the policy tapestry that you have woven together and think back fondly to Cancun and the inspiration of Ixchel."

By the way, Ixchel is a goddess of fertility who is often depicted wearing a headdress entwined with a serpent. Claws substitute her hands and feet. Creepy.

The opening prayer to a pagan god set the tone to this year's climate confab, as representatives from 193 countries have been seen soaking up the 80-degree Mexican weather by day and sucking up the adult beverages bearing tiny umbrellas at night. The U.K.'s energy and environment secretary, Chris Huhne, was especially excited to finally arrive -- he had been delayed in London because of the some of the worst English winter weather in decades.

And then there has been the hot air emanating from the mouths of bloviating environmentalists and policymakers who are trying to maintain their relevance, after a year in which their claims of human-caused global warming have fallen flat.


Even the usually in-the-tank-on-global-warming New York Times observed:

The apathy is palpable, and a far cry from the atmosphere last year when President Obama and the leaders of more than 100 other nations descended in droves upon the chilly Danish capital of Copenhagen to hawk their views at the climate circus. That conference saw U.S. congressional champions of cap-and-trade legislation as well as skeptics jostling to share their views on the prospects for American domestic action and a new international treaty.
My, what a difference a year makes. Certainly those damning e-mails leaked from a computer server belonging to the once-esteemed Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in the U.K. didn't help matters. Those communiqués revealed well-known climate researchers speaking in baseless terms about their critics, discussing clever ways to sidestep skeptical colleagues of man-made climate change, devising plans to freeze opponents out of peer-reviewed journals, and systematically manipulating the earth's temperature record. The e-mails became known as "Climategate" and led to the title of my hard-hitting book.

Like with carnies hawking tickets to a sideshow, the predictions made at this year's U.N. climate conference were more outrageous than ever. They included:


T
emperatures climbing 6.4o Celsius (11.4o Fahrenheit) after 2050.

Sea levels rising two meters by the end of the century.

The islands nations of Maldives and Tuvalu soon to be inundated by rising waters.

Developed countries must immediately implement energy rationing systems to mandate the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions, thus reducing the imminent threats imposed by global warming.

By continuing on our current emissions path, climate change will double grain prices by 2050 and leave millions of children malnourished.
The assertions are a crock. For example, since 1850 -- the beginning of the Industrial Revolution -- the earth's average surface temperature has risen only 0.7 degrees Celsius (just a bit more than one degree Fahrenheit). Point-seven degrees Celsius in 160 years -- that's all the warming planet earth has experienced, and this minuscule temperature increase coincided with the proliferation of the train, car, truck, and even the lawnmower and leaf blower. Oh, and here's a pill that's tough for the global whiners to swallow: the bulk of this warming occurred before 1940.

The U.N.'s new predicted 6.4-degree-Celsius rise in temperature surpasses any of their previous predictions. It's likely that the prognosis is the product of a political activist with a Ph.D. who got a turn to play genius with a government computer model.

As for the sea level rise, Al Gore's been showing maps of a similar predicted deluge for several years. If Gore was so confident of the increase, why did he purchase a multimillion-dollar bayside condo in San Francisco? According to the maps, his pad will be swamped. Truth is, the oceans have been steadily rising since the last Ice Age. Take your index finger and place it as close as you can to your thumb, without the two touching. That's how much the oceans rise each year. Over the next ninety years, the rise will be no more than several inches, not over six feet.

And the submersion of Tuvalu and Maldives? Their surrounding waters show no measurable signs of rising. The problem is the islands of Maldives are relatively flat coral atolls. Since tourism was first introduced to the nation in 1972, ninety plush resorts have been built, with locally mined coral being the primary aggregate for construction. Digging up coral on small islands to build large hotels and conference centers is as stupid as sucking the air out of a lifeboat to breathe. The mining has severely compromised the atolls, creating the impression that the islands are sinking.

Likewise, Tuvalu's problem is not climate change. Tuvalu's mess is that the country was never meant for modern habitation. There is no fresh water available -- only what can be cached from rain. Much of the population on the main island uses a lagoon for its bathing and toilet facilities. The tiny nation ships its garbage to landfills in Fiji and New Zealand. Tuvalu is a tropical island mess being run by slick politicians using global warming for a shakedown operation. In a 2007 speech at the United Nations, the Deputy Prime Minister of Tuvalu, Tavau Teii, said that major greenhouse polluters should compensate Tuvalu for the impacts of climate change. "We are seeking new funding arrangements to protect us from the impacts of climate change ... we believe that the major greenhouse polluters should pay for the impacts they are causing."

Then there's the conference's claim that the solution to climate change is rationing. This is the most troubling assertion of all, as we have an administration running the White House who believes such a plan is worthy. Note President Obama's director of science and technology policy, John Holdren, who has written, "A massive campaign must be launched in North America to restore a high-quality environment and to de-develop the United States ... This effort must be largely political."

Then there is Hillary Clinton, who, during her Senate confirmation hearings for Secretary of State, said, " ... climate change is an unambiguous security threat. At the extreme, it threatens our very existence."

In addition, one year ago, Lisa Jackson, the Director of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), issued a statement declaring that "the current and projected concentrations of [carbon dioxide] ... threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations." The EPA's solution is using less fossil fuel.

Indeed, the 2009 House Energy bill (passed by the House, but never by the Senate) calls for an 80-percent reduction in CO2 by 2050. By then, the United States will have -- according to Census figures -- 100 million more residents. Achieving an 80-percent decrease in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050 will spell the end of the coal industry (which supplies energy to 50 percent of our homes), the offshoring of our entire manufacturing sector, and the death of the gasoline-powered automobile. If the Senate had passed similar legislation, Obama would have signed it into law in a heartbeat, and we'd be on our way to...rationing!

And the prediction of food shortages and price increases? Actually, if the temperatures were to warm a couple degrees, the amount of available land for farming would increase dramatically. For example, in Canada, Russia, and China, agriculture would benefit from longer growing seasons. Other benefits would be the expansion of forests and a decrease in heating fuel costs. Food costs will rise if a cap-and-trade scheme becomes law; the increased cost of diesel fuel alone would force transportation costs to rise dramatically in the agricultural sector.

The flaming-hot rhetoric down in Cancun is making this conference more of a howler than ever. And there are still several days of fun in the sun to go!

The global whiners can continue to make all the wild pronouncements they wish, but the fact is that they're losing the debate.


Brian Sussman is the author of Climategate: A Veteran Meteorologist Exposes the Global Warming Scam and the host of "Sussman in the Morning" on KSFO radio in San Francisco.

November 27, 2010

Cancun Party Time!


United Nations climate talks in limbo

FROM-Politico
By: Darren Samuelsohn

For eight years, the world waited for a U.S. president to help stop global warming and save the planet.

So far, Barack Obama hasn't lived up to the job.

Cap-and-trade legislation Obama promised two years ago on the campaign trail is dead and buried, and his administration is attempting to regulate carbon dioxide emissions and cover billions of dollars in pledges without majority support in Congress.

Internationally, heading into the U.N.-led climate talks in Cancun, Mexico, next week, prospects for a multitrillion-dollar transocean carbon market are in tatters and a new binding treaty to succeed the Kyoto Protocol remains years away.

Obama won't be going to Mexico for the conference that starts Nov. 29, and neither will Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi or many of the other members of Congress who went to ice-cold Copenhagen for last year's U.N. negotiations.

The State Department's Todd Stern will be the face of the Obama administration during the two-week meeting that starts Nov. 29. His job is to sell Plan B: A suite of Environmental Protection Agency climate regulations and billions of dollars in renewable energy stimulus bill spending that the White House says would curb domestic emissions 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020.

“People respect that the president wants to do this," Stern told reporters last week after preliminary negotiations in Arlington, Va. "It’s night and day as compared to the previous administration. But having said that, no question we’d have been in a markedly stronger position had we gotten our domestic legislation done.”

The outsize expectations for Obama on climate change came in no small part because of how George W. Bush handled the climate issue. For eight years, Bush battled Democrats, environmentalists and much of the rest of the world by resisting calls to cap greenhouse gas emissions.

On the international stage, foreign diplomats often tagged the United States as an enemy. At a 2007 meeting in Bali, Indonesia, officials from Europe, South Africa and Papua New Guinea blasted Bush officials and prompted the entire conference to boo them. Former Vice President Al Gore pleaded with negotiators to "save a large, open blank space" for the next president.

But by the much-anticipated Copenhagen conference in December, Obama still didn't have a climate law in hand, forcing him and 120 other leaders to skirt the sort of treaty deal many had envisioned when he was sworn into office.

"The expectations for Copenhagen were unrealistic," U.N. climate chief Christiana Figueres said last week. "It's not possible to come to one agreement that's going to magically solve every problem that we have on climate change, which was, unfortunately, the expectation that was up there in the air."


Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), co-author of several unsuccessful cap-and-trade bills over the past decade, suggested an under-the-radar approach could yield results.

"Perhaps what Copenhagen has contributed to this moment, pre-Cancun, is low expectations," Lieberman said. "As a result, we may be surprised by what happens."

Much of Washington seems oblivious to Cancun. Several top Democrats who normally are in the middle of the international climate debate were unprepared last week for questions about the next stage of the U.N. process, including Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer and House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman.

Republicans, meanwhile, are gloating at the current state of the international process and relishing the opportunity to undo even more of Obama's domestic climate agenda next year.

"What are you going to do in Cancun other than go swimming?" said Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe, an outspoken climate science skeptic who spent about three hours in Copenhagen last December.

"It's amazing how little buzz there is about that meeting," said Nebraska Rep. Lee Terry, a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. "I just hear nobody talking about it. Like Copenhagen, that was a big deal. And so I just think the expectations are so low of Cancun that no one is really looking toward it."

In Copenhagen, closed-door negotiations between the United States, China, India, Brazil and South Africa produced the "Copenhagen Accord" — a nonbinding document that allows countries to make their own emission reduction and financial pledges. The voluntary agreement looked like something dreamed up by Bush officials on steroids, although the U.S. for the first time committed to significant reductions on its own, leading some of the world's emerging economic powerhouses to follow suit.

Next week in Cancun, diplomats will be trying to iron out the Copenhagen Accord's fine print, such as determining how to measure the reliability of countries' different environmental offers and the makeup of multibillion-dollar funds designed to help poor nations deploy low-carbon energy technologies and also cope with rising seas, heat waves, floods and droughts.


Even without being there, the White House could face some critical moments in Cancun.

The two biggest players in the room — the U.S. and China — continue to test each other's limits over how to monitor a country's emission pledges, and how that should be tied to access to billions of dollars in foreign aid.

Also tricky is where the U.S. will find its share of a $30 billion short-term commitment it made in Copenhagen for developing countries, as well as a $100 billion long-term promise. Clinton made those pledges with the hope an emissions auction would help generate the funds.

Figueres, a former top Costa Rican diplomat, said she's not concerned about Obama’s inability to get a climate bill signed into law. "The expectation of everyone is the United States will comply with its 17 percent" target, she said. "How they do it is completely a domestic affair."

Obama is expected to address the Cancun negotiations before the talks begin and several observers say he could hit the phones with other world leaders during the negotiations if the situation warrants, much like Bill Clinton did in the closing hours of the 1997 Kyoto summit.

But long-term prospects for the U.N. negotiations are in peril given the difficulties any White House occupant would face trying to get a binding climate treaty ratified by the Senate. Current struggles surrounding everything from nuclear arms reduction to trade don’t have many U.S. observers feeling optimistic.

"I don't know if we can pass dogcatcher appreciation day anymore," said Michael Levi, senior energy and environment fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. "I think it's problematic."

Consensus seems to be emerging that the talks will continue beyond the end-of-the-year 2011 summit scheduled for South Africa. Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, suggested the U.N. climate process itself is on "probation."

Climate diplomats and veterans of the process have suggested a shift toward the Group of 20 nations and other bilateral and multilateral venues. Critics argue that such a move would leave out of the process many of the poor and island countries most vulnerable to global warming and who have no other forum to be heard.

Stern said that while Cancun won't be the make-or-break moment for the U.N.-led effort, people should certainly be on notice that they don't have much longer to wait.

"I wouldn't say it's a referendum," Stern said. "But I would say if the process can't make any progress this year, can't make any progress next year, there's going to be a point at which it's not going to work."

November 15, 2010

As Kyoto plan collapses, Plan B emerges

FROM-Washington Times
Even after Copenhagen, carbon alarmists aren't giving up
By Dalibor Rohac


Although preparations are in place for a sum- mit on climate change in Cancun, Mexico, at the end of November, it is clear that the goal of cutting carbon emissions through coordinated action by the world's governments is dead. Nevertheless, it would be too early to celebrate, as the threat of fear-driven and economically costly climate policies is not gone yet. It is merely being transformed into a more subtle - and potentially more dangerous - agenda.

The Copenhagen summit last year was the last nail in the coffin of the Kyoto process. Under Kyoto, countries would agree to specific emission targets and then use "cap-and-trade" to allocate the limited amount of carbon emissions to various industrial uses. However, in 2009, the world's leaders failed to agree on any measurable commitment to cutting carbon emissions by this method.

In fact, they did so for a very good reason. Meeting the initially envisaged objectives of reducing CO2 emissions by 50 percent by 2050 and 80 percent by 2100 is, under current technology, not feasible without drastic reductions in economic activity and, therefore, standards of living. This may not seem like much to Western politicians and celebrities. However, for the political leaders of large emerging economies such as China and India, forestalling their current economic expansion in order to obtain very uncertain benefits some hundred years from now would be the height of folly.