Sunday
Dec132015
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Cold light of day is earlier than usual
Dec 13, 2015 Climate: WG3 As predicted in our lighthearted look at the COPs, the breakthrough moment at COP21 was reached yesterday. The cold light of day appears to have been reached almost immediately afterwards.
Grand promises of Paris climate deal undermined by squalid retrenchments
Reader Comments (122)
This is for those who thinks that skeptics are the funded lobby.
Where on earth did those American Greenies get hundreds of millions of dollars ? Naomi Klein discovered where those 'largely invisible' funds are likely to have come from. The fossil fuel industry.
"Profits of doom
The European Commission has paid environmental campaigners directly to carry out its political agenda. In 1999, at a cost of about EUR500,000, it set up a new group, the European Environmental Bureau, while also paying both the Friends of the Earth and the WWF EUR250,000 each to set up offices in Brussels. On another occasion, the Climate Action Network was given EUR140,000 for "capacity building". In fact, the Commission funnels about EUR3 million (£2.48 million) a year to environmental groups that it favours.
But that's a drop of oil in the Gulf of Mexico compared with the amounts that private foundations in the US are estimated to provide each year to environmental causes. The sums involved run into the hundreds of millions of dollars. One green organisation - the Tides Foundation - had net assets of $142,007,356 in 2006. Local green groups may rely on "flapjack and organic-soap fundraising mornings" - but real campaigns are funded by a very different and largely invisible mix.
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=412726&c=2
River Shannon floods in 1959/ 60........
Evidence of global warming ?
Shock horror , Ireland is wet.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nCQ1C4BFRco
There are 2 sides in the banned debate : The rational and the irrational
You'd think after banging on about reducing CO2 and saying this is our LAST CHANCE, they'd actually reduce CO2.
I'd be saying, " right this is a real crisis those of us believe are going to stop having children right now. There will be almost ZERO new construction, no new roads, no new houses. We believers will start sharing houses. I am sorry the 50% who don't believe but there is no way we are going to create even more children by giving you free money to make even more children. And anyway since all your islands are finished, we'll evacuate them right now.... Just bear with us till we have this climate crisis under control by developing proper CO2 energy like fusion power"
..but no we all these dumb "have your CAKE & EAT solutions : like we'll burn heaps of CO2 now to make massive of concrete for windfarms which are uneconomic, intermittant and inefficient and we'll give hundreds of millions of dollars to rich people like Elon Musk to build SPORTS CARS for other already rich people, we'll give even more subsidies to rich people to build solar PV parks , which corps would have done already WITHOUT a subsidy..IF THEY WORKED"
"There needs to be a warning on posts like these. I hate clicking on a link, that sends me to the guardian web site"
@ vieras - You don't have to click on a link to find out where it goes - try mousing over it, and then observing the bottom of your browser screen. This normally shows up the URL which the link points to, so you have the opportunity to avoid actually going there. On this iPad holding my finger on the link for a couple of seconds results in a pop-up box which also shows the destination URL. Again, you can decide whether (or not) to open that link.
@esmiff $142million is playing down the Tides Foundation
.. in fact they payout EVER YEAR almost $100million. In 2006 they received $142m in one year from Pew Trust
Well for the years they openly declare turnover, which is not many cos they act as a kind of money laundering operation for charities.
Jesus ..and they and Greenpeace who get large anonymous donations like $250K have the gore to try and get thinktank donors exposed
The Pew Charitable Trusts has assets of $5bn and hands out $250m /year NOT ALL to green causes.
Does anybody know the identity of the UK's unelected top team of climate negotiators? Or do we have to wait for the New Year's DisHonour list to find out?
COP21 agreement has been hailed as a historic achievement, a milestone in the course of progress towards limiting temperatures rise to below 2deg C and a turning point in the evolution of the world economy. To me it reads like the western worlds Greens have led our political leaders into digging a hole into which our economies can be buried and providing India and China a license to build 100 coal fired generating plants a year for the next 25 years.
If this agreement is fully complied with by its signatories that is what would happen- of course it won't be and even if it was there is no assurance it would have any detectable affect on the global average Temperature.
We should hail it as a great success and point out that now the planet has been saved we can disband the UNFCC and the IPCC and the UEA centre for climate studies and stop holding COPs. The BBC and the Grauniac can let off their climate correspondents and WWF and GREENPEACE can close up shop and stop bothering us, polar bears and pandas
stewgreen
The Pews are arguably the most right wing family in American history. They are the inheritors of the Sunoco Oil fortune. Their logo is a sun symbol.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pew_Charitable_Trusts#History
http://kochtruths.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/debunking-pew-family-claims.html
I had passed up the temptation to comment on that when I saw it some days ago, because there was so much to aim at.
As with Harrabin on BBC radio the other day, they see no problem with naked political advocacy [alternatives to capitalism as practised since the industrial revolution] that a professional politician knows would lose them an election in this country. Yet they pretend to be some kind of science journalists.
The BBC has given them the green light by issuing their notorious guidelines forbidding proper discussion of contrarian views or even light-hearted criticisms such as Quentin Letts' deleted radio broadcast (still currently available on the internet).
Seems to me that we had a bunch of greenies claiming that industrial nations affected the climate.
Now we have the UN and the greenies claiming that they control the industrial nations
does that mean that if I don't get the climate I want, I can sue the UN ?
Golf Charlie: "who are the negotiators?"
I just sent this email to my MP:
@Golf
Probably bland evil Jonathan Faull types.
Euro engineers whose goal it is to create artificial scarcity at every given opportunity.
Refer to the Irish Jesuit brotherhood get together interviews in Dublin Castle ,The IIEA1
Just had the displeasure to watch Sir Gordon's Conroys lecture -" Agriculture at the center of the storm."
The poor man seems to think we grow many spuds in the Ireland of today.
Climate is not the only driver of food production.
Its the market that drives production.
He talks about better Barley and wheat production opportunities in the future but Barley acreage was double in 1977 relative to today as locally produced beer peaked during the late 70s
This is classic Euro policy
Force the industrialization of activity and then tax you for being a victim of overproduction.
Again it was European policy to destroy Irish peasant agriculture.
In Ireland the mixed 30 to 50 acre farm was destroyed in the 70s
Replaced by the 200acre mercantile Dairy farm which have experienced constant boom and busts as they seek to offload its excessive costs via external customers / exports
"Climate smart agriculture "
Sweet Jesus .
Golf Charlie
I know Amber Rudd is at the top.
I watched the 2.43 min of the Sennet " Data or Dogma" video currently on YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QmnaMWg0M4
I think it is the first try at a real debate on the subject or MGW. John Christy, Mark Steyn, Juddy Curry, Willim Happer, were briliant. Admiral Titley had a good try but his testimony was as full of holes as a colander. Ted Cruz is my new hero !
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWmupoRY-To
GC/Harry Passfield,
You can find the full list of the UK participants and negotiators on pages 36-39(!) of the following pdf:
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/misc02p03.pdf
John Shade (Dec 13, 2015 at 1:02 PM)
Your quote from Thomas Sowell captures exactly the power of Monbiot. I used to admire him for his ability to hunt out facts that made you sit up and think “I didn't know that”. He had a last burst of investigative potency at the time of Climategate when he called for Phil Jones' resignation, but he then lamely announced that if the official enquiries cleared Jones and his colleagues he wouldn't be writing about climate any more. “Investigative Journalist Swallows Official Report Before It's Even Written” should have been the headline in Private Eye that killed him with ridicule. Like William Boot in Evelyn Waugh's “Scoop” he's gone back to writing Nature Notes – about Mammoths in Monmouthshire.
It's nice to see that the Green Blob has come round to Lord Lawson's point of view, but a little disturbing that Lawson won't be allowed on to the BBC to point this out.
In a late but secret meeting of leading delegates it was agreed that the next COP meeting will be held on a remote island, preferably one threatened by rising sea levels, All delegates will be required to travel using the long established power of the wind. Greenpeace, WWF, Friends of the Earth and other state funded ‘charities’ are to invest their accumulated wealth in a new flotilla of ‘Sailing Ships’ for the purpose. It is anticipated that this new/old form of transport will be re-developed and used by holiday cruise companies. to improve their ‘Green’ credentials.
West Cork peasantry 1971.
Two years before the official start of the euro scouring.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dmghQANfWGU
Salopian: The power of Blogs. Thanks. But it will be interesting to see if my MP comes up with the same list......Cheers.
Salopian: I noticed a Mr. Peter Betts, Director, International Climate Change, Department of Energy and Climate Change on the list of attendees. Any relation to another Betts of our acquaintance?
And this person:
Bet he was p*ssed off they forgot his 'Title'. heeHee.Not to mention:
At a rough count, 47 male and 49 female attendees.Salopian:
I see we had a 'Science Negotiator' at the fair.
The science we want at a price we can afford..
"For those with common sense, how do we limit global warming to 1.5C when it has stopped warming anyway, and climate science experts don't know why?"
Pretty much sums up the whole charade in a nutshell.
"For historians, the French revolution was partially triggered by incompetent corruption by the privileged few,..."
The French revolution was also partly triggered by the little ice age. Terrible storms caused crop failures, this lead to people who were pretty hungry anyway to the brink of starvation. Direct action is what followed.
One of the things that isn't often mentioned in the whole CAGW debate is that warmer climates are more benign. The alarmists desperately point to extreme weather events and claim that they are increasing, but it only takes a moment of research to know that the opposite is true. It is a little ironic that the thing that we could really do with to put the whole sorry mess to bed is colder weather and all the problems that it brings with it.
Harry,
It will be interesting seeing what list your MP comes up with. Being an ex-Civil Servant, I knew it would be bugger-all use looking for a list on the DECC or UK Govt sites, so I searched for UNFCCC documents. The pdf I found is the provisional list of participants from 1/12, I couldn't access the directory to get to the final version.
@ golf charlie at 4:15 PM (& Others)
The ACTUAL (rather than 'provisional') list of attendees was published 11th Dec.
The official UK delegation is on p138-141.
There is also a separate list of the 8,314 personnel of NGOs etc. whose consciences dictated they had to attend.
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/inf03p02.pdf
salopian: Well done for looking in places I couldn't think of. Yes, I tried all the normal routes and I'm grateful to you for the pdf. As you say, it'll be interesting to see what my MP comes up with.
Many thanks.
Has anyone here ever thought about what they would do if they were in charge and CO2 emissions really did need to be reduced?
My thought was to gradually change all fossil fuel electricity generation over to nuclear. All railways to be electrified. Possibly subsidise high speed passenger trains in specific places where they could replace internal flights. Improve facilities for cyclists and remove VAT from cycles and cycle accessories. These are just a few things that I thought of off the top of my head. They have the advantage that they would actually work. I'm sure that others have better ideas.
'One of the things that isn't often mentioned in the whole CAGW debate is that warmer climates are more benign. The alarmists desperately point to extreme weather events and claim that they are increasing, but it only takes a moment of research to know that the opposite is true. It is a little ironic that the thing that we could really do with to put the whole sorry mess to bed is colder weather and all the problems that it brings with it.'
Well said! (Stoneyground, 5:52 PM)
Joe Public,
Many thanks for that, was hoping someone else could find it. The UK bodycount appears more or less the same, and they don't appear to have corrected Charlie's and Gumbo's titles.
Alan Reed,
Not just a 'Science Negotiator', but also a 'Gender Negotiator' - WTF is that?
Stonyground, I would greatly subsidise buses so as the desire to use a private car was greatly reduced. In urban areas where the route is known and short they would be battery powered.
And the batteries would be charged from your nuclear power stations.
This would also solve congestion and benefit the poorest over those who can afford a car.
But no Green policy benefits the poor. Green policies are very regressive.
That's why they aren't left-wing.
All good fun. They made an agreement, so were able to claim success (never mind what the agreement says). Bits of it will be legally binding, but not so much. Some joker changed 'should' to 'shall' in many places in the final draft - which would have produced something that the US could not have lived with. So 'shall' was rapidly changed back to 'should' - that is, a pious hope rather than a binding obligation. However 'shall' remains in some places - mostly in reference to supplying information. Will it still have to go to Congress? If it does, maybe the Executive will hold off, to see if the political wind changes.
And, like most of these things, there's something for everyone, if you look. Take the recital on page 21:
"Recognizing that Parties may be affected not only by climate change, but also by the impacts of the measures taken in response to it, " [bold added]
Not everywhere is that admitted...
6pm news mentioned the word 'euphoria' in connection with the Paris agreement. Who are they kidding?
@M Courtney
I'm not sure that buses are the answer to anything, personally I detest the things. They are slow and inefficient and if you want to travel ten miles on one you end up travelling twenty because they never travel from where you are to where you want to go. Sorry to sound so negative. The thing that I am getting at though is that there are far better solutions than solar panels and windmills.
M Courtney:
As much as I agree totally with your first and second sentences, when it comes to your third, I am forced to ask: what on earth are they, MC?I love the way that COP21 intends to ensure its carbon footprint is zero, but ultimately offsetting it all.
It would be interesting to know how much the offsetting costs as a % of the whole conference.
http://newsroom.unfccc.int/unfccc-newsroom/the-carbon-footprint-of-cop21-frequently-asked-questions/
M Courtney, ( and Stonyground, Harry Passfield):
"I would greatly subsidise buses so as the desire to use a private car was greatly reduced" "....and benefit the poorest over those who can afford a car"
Bollocks; the only reason the green blob/lefties promote public over private transport, is so they can restrict/monitor the movements of the 'proles'.
Richard Green
"The treaty now gives the UK government carte blanche to amend the “target for 2050” in the 2008 Climate Change Act, effectively suspending it."
That''s a good thing, surely?
I understood that the EU representatives were 'negotiating' on behalf of all the EU countries, so I find it odd that the UK government would bother sending anyone other than a messenger to bring back the appropriate instructions.
Yes guys should forget about left right cat fights.
The debate should be put into a different older context.
Belloc (agricultural ) / Douglas (industrial ) distribution vs Fabian socialist centralization of GB Shaw and others.
There is no doubt in my mind on where I stand.
Ireland engaged in a huge centralising dynamic starting with the free state foundation but increasing in tempo dramatically with European union entry.
We are again now seeing massive rises in GDP (pointless activity ) and consequent huge drops in wealth / wellbeing.
Using GDP targetting to improve economic performance is the most anti humanitarian act one can dream up.
It only benefits the usury class.
It most certainly does not benefit small owners.
GDP measures were first formally adopted during the Breton woods conference in 44.
It is not commonly understood but GDP increases include increases in depreciation.
So rust production is added to our accounts !!!!!
Once you adopt such polices emissions must rise.
Ireland's hugely increased diesel and aviation emission post the 2010 bailout again prove this but it was already very apparent during the late 80s / early 90s recovery.
The data is very clear on this.
Anybody who can read energy balances must know this.
Production is not used for consumption anymore.
GDP rises are a measure of wasted effort.
Joe Ronan,
The EU is not a member of the UN, it only has observer status. It (European Commission) has no mandate to 'negotiate' on behalf of Member States, although I expect those European Commission 'observers' present would have done a fair bit of meddling ('advising').
http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2010/09/economics-of-distributism-part-i.html
The author makes the "mistake" that no disciplined economic order stepped up to the plate to challenge the bankers wisdom of pointless growth.
But of course this is not so.
Douglas explained the flaws within a capitalistic system almost perfectly.
@michael hart, Dec 13, 2015 at 4:32 PM
Also here: Whats.The.Point.Of.S07E01.The.Met.Office.BBC.R4.DAB
The watermelons have been trying to get rid of cars long before they thought of CAGW as a reason. If you ask them whether, if cars could be made non "polluting" and congestion free, would they still want them banned, they will tell you, "yes". The reason being, cars are not collectivist like public transport.
Their so called "radical transport solutions" always come down to old fashioned collectivist buses, trams and trains. There have been various high tech solutions mooted which transport people personally or in self selected groups, wherever they are discussed you will find watermelons doing their best to stifle the discussion.
Salopian, I had the impression from various news reports that the EU was party to the negotiations. It seems that the individual countries are also parties. This from the EU Commission Climate Action pages:
"The European Union, all EU Member States and virtually every other country in the world are Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the main international treaty for fighting climate change".
There was a series of meetings over the last two years where EU countries were bashing out an agreed position. I assumed that that position was then handled by the EU at the COP21. I may well be wrong and that they have chosen the most inefficient way possible of handling a negotiation, with every man and his dog at the party.
Salopian,
I have no idea. Its never really been a matter of negotiation
Most gender are only after one thing (shelves) - so its more a matter of extortion.
Salopian, Amber Rudd was just described on the BBC R4 10pm news bulletin as "a member of the EU negotiating team".
Can someone advise where I can download a copy of final text.
Bill: I found this at WUWT: http://www.cfact.org/2015/12/12/read-the-un-paris-climate-agreement-text-here/
Joe Ronan, The European Union (Commission) has no mandate to 'handle' European matters at a UN level, it is not a member of the UN as an entirety. European Member States are members of the UN, but the European Commission is only an observer.
Salopian, NW,
Banning private transport is illiberal. No way do I recommend restricting people's right to spend their resources on cars.
But most journeys are not a choice.
They are required.
If the State provides a communal transport system to replace the unfree commutes then those who would only make the travel they must make is less penalised than those who make such trips and can still enjoy travel in their own time.
Harry Passfield,
Greens want to take from those who have more than sufficient (sounds like the Left so far) but gives to those who can serve Mother Nature best (Eh! That's not those who have the greatest need).
OK. The idea of levelling opportunities derived from property seems wrong to the Right-wing. Property rights must be absolute or property means nowt. That's the belief that makes people choose to be Right-wing.
Yet helping Mother Nature means helping those who have most dominion over Mother Nature because they have most influence over Mother Nature.
That's why Greens always kowtow to the rich.