Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > COP22 Attendees

Golf Charlie

As you say, I am unpaid too. This is why I rarely bother to discuss your delusions any more.

Dec 9, 2016 at 12:00 AM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Entropic Man, you stick with Mann's Hockey Stick and the 97% Nonscience.

What do you believe me to be deluded about? I have been asking which bits of Climate Science are worth saving. I was hoping you might have some sensible suggestions.

In terms of COP 22, it is clear that no useful purpose was ever going to be achieved, even before Trump's victory. It was a waste of millions of mainly taxpayer funding, that has not benefitted anyone, unless you can reveal some magical power to a mutual backslapping party.

Perhaps you should take your anger to the Hockey Teamsters, they corrupted science, not me. I fell for it once. I got over it. You are still in Denial.

Dec 9, 2016 at 12:43 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

+1

Dec 9, 2016 at 12:50 AM | Unregistered Commenterstewgreen

stewgreen, I think I was deluded, because I thought Entropic Man might want to save some bits of Climate Science.

Dec 9, 2016 at 3:42 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

I was trying to look into the Strategic Climate Fund, to see where its money comes from. I was (as I always seem to be) short of time, and wasn't making much progress. Then I came across this footnote to an article in The Times about consultants with their snouts in the UK foreign aid trough, as reported via the GWPF website:

http://www.thegwpf.com/consultants-take-billions-from-foreign-aid-budget/

"Britain is giving £274 million to a climate change fund from which the United States is threatening to withdraw.

The Strategic Climate Fund is the fifth largest beneficiary among international bodies supported by the aid budget. However, the US plans to withhold all donations to the fund, which is supposed to help developing countries cope with climate change.

Britain has pledged far more than any other country to international climate funds, promising to supply nearly $3 billion of their $8 billion budgets."

Oh dear, oh dear.

Dec 9, 2016 at 8:35 AM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

EM declines to discuss delusions sounds very much like something Vincent van Gogh would have written to his brother.

Dec 9, 2016 at 10:32 AM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

PC, by the way thanks for posting the CV on President elect Trump's pick to transition the EPA from climate extremist front back to a legitimate government agency. It sounds like he is the man for the job. I do hope that part of the desperately needed reform is to perform an extremely thorough review of existing conflicts of interest. As to your echo chamber repeating of the lies about Exxon, it is clear you know as little about that as you do American politics and climate science.

Dec 9, 2016 at 10:40 AM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

Mark Hodgson, my take on what you found out about how the climate change industry is getting its funding is that you've been had, and hopefully your PM will let go of the bag. More and more it would appear that the climate change consensus industry is purely parasitic in nature
It produces dubious science, unworkable international agreements, raises the costs of power production, damages the environment, impoverishes the people, degrades education into indoctrination, and corrupts government and industry, while neglecting infrastructure needs. All done while holding a series of annual moveable feasts at lavish Potemkin villages around the world.

Dec 9, 2016 at 10:52 AM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

Mark Hodgson, the front page of today's Times highlights further snouts and blatant abuse around Commonwealth Development aid.

I fully appreciate that some UK financial aid to foreign countries actually stays within the UK, to pay for specialist expertise, such as engineering, design etc.

Global Warming has just become a bottomless pit of free money for con artists, all preaching how disastrous life MAY be IF bad things happen. Nothing has happened, and lots of people are taking other people's hard earned cash for doing absolutely nothing, but invent more reasons to take other people's money.

I don't care whether people are politically Left or Right, this is fraud and corruption, justified because it is to save humanity. This is rubbish, it is a crime against humanity.

The scandal around Kids Company and Camilla Batmanghelidjh, involved emotional blackmail for 10s of millions of pounds. Global Warming has involved 100s of billions of pounds.

Dec 9, 2016 at 11:19 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

I just Googled the Strategi Climate Fund. This is their self introduction.


"The Strategic Climate Fund (SCF) is one of the two funds of the Climate Investment Funds. It serves as an overarching framework to support three targeted programs with dedicated funding to pilot new approaches with potential for scaled-up, transformational action aimed at a specific climate change challenge or sectoral response."

ie it takes Taxpayer Funding and does absolutely nothing with it. QANGOs are alive and well, but hopefully not for much longer.

Dec 9, 2016 at 1:56 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

hunter & golf charlie - my thoughts exactly! Your last one, gc, illustrates the point nicely. I would have beaten you to it, but being an IT illiterate I just managed to lose the comment I was about to post. Hey ho.

As a bit of a lefty, I'm permanently surprised why other lefties, and/or obviously intelligent people such as EM and Phil C don't have more of a problem with all this. It's perfectly possible - or it should be - to believe in CAGW but to be uncomfortable about much that is being done in the name of saving the planet. But apparently no, it all has to be defended, even the clearly rotten bits. It's why I always liken it to a religion.

From Phil C's own link to the UNFCC propaganda about offsetting, I found the rather less edifying quote about COP21. It included this beauty: "Greenhouse gas emissions produced on the conference site that cannot be reduced from the source will be evaluated. A consulting firm, ECOACT, has been selected in January 2015 after a call for tender."

ECOACT? A French company, apparently:

http://www.eco-act.com/qui-sommes-nous/

"EcoAct is a leading company in carbon strategies, acting on three major axes: measuring, reducing, and achieving carbon neutrality.
EcoAct empowers companies to decarbonize their activities and make their climate strategy a driving force. EcoAct experts also aim to adapt approaches for companies to ensure that strategies, whether to reduce carbon emissions or integrate a carbon price, are tailored to the context in which the company works. In order to achieve success and ensure uptake of strategies, EcoAct has a comprehensive understanding of the challenges, stakeholders, and key success factors for every client.

In 2016, EcoAct was once again awarded Worldwide Best Advisory Service and Worldwide Best Project Developer Overall by Environmental Finance."

Environmental Finance? They can be found here:

https://www.environmental-finance.com/

This is from their website:

"The process of integrating the environment and finance has only just begun
The 'green economy' is a hot topic at the moment. It moved up the agenda thanks to the game-changing Paris climate agreement. And momentum continued to grow this year as a result of the importance that the G20 has placed on 'green finance'."

Oh yes, boys and girls, there's money to be made from the green madness. Lots of it. Fill your boots!

Dec 9, 2016 at 2:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

Mark Hodgson, I am on average, just to the right of centre, but the Global Warming scam has demonstrated the ease with which politics can be so corrupted by personal greed. City financiers are criticised for putting their greed first. Global Warmists have done the same, whilst preaching pure hypocrisy about saving the planet.

Apparently Global Warming was originally based on science. It turns out there is almost none at all. I am no fan of Trump, but he was the better of the two candidates. If he pulls US funding out of the IPCC, EPA etc, it couldn't happen sooner.

I have just realised how very useful the propaganda site Skeptical Science is. Assume everything they say is wrong, and you are closer to the truth. Their promotion of flawed science should be very useful for Trump, Pruitt et al, in working out what to bin first.

Certain Science papers have established bad science, in the way that some legal cases have legitimised bad law. Skeptical Science documents bad science, and they are proud to promote it.

Dec 9, 2016 at 3:03 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

COP22 - the UN people there:

UN Secretariat: 51 attendees.

Department of Economic & Social Affairs - 6 attendees.

Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific - 4 attendees.

Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia - 9 attendees.

Economic Commission for Africa - 59 attendees.

International Trade Centre - 4 attendees.

Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States - just one attendee (obviously not as important as Africa).

Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General & Chief Executive for Sustainable Energy for All - 8 attendees.

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights - 4 attendees.

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees - 7 attendees.

Ozone Secretariat - 2 attendees.

Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity - 4 attendees.

Secretariat of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification - 16 attendees.

UN Global Compact - 10 attendees.

United Nations Capital Development Fund - 3 attendees.

United Nations Children's Fund - 20 attendees.

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development - 7 attendees.

United Nations Department of Public Information - 7 attendees.

United Nations Development Programme - 28 attendees.

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe - 7 attendees.

United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean - 6 attendees.

United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women - 15 attendees.

United Nations Environment Programme - 43 attendees.

United Nations Human Settlements Programme - 10 attendees.

United Nations Institute for Training and Research - 17 attendees.

United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction - 8 attendees.

United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs - 2 attendees.

United Nations Office for Project Services - 31 attendees.

United Nations Population Fund - 4 attendees.

United Nations University - 10 attendees.

United Nations Volunteers - one attendee (what, just one volunteer?).

World Food Programme - 10 attendees.

You might think that was enough. But no, now we move on to "Specialized agencies and related organizations".

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations - 25 attendees.

Global Environment Facility - 19 attendees.

Green Climate Fund - 22 attendees.

Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission - 14 attendees.

International Atomic Energy Agency - 3 attendees.

International Civil Aviation Organization - 5 attendees.

International Fund for Agricultural Development - 18 attendees.

International Labour Organization - 10 attendees.

International Maritime Organization - one attendee (good to see a bit of self-restraint there!).

International Monetary Fund - 2 attendees.

International Telecommunication Union - 5 attendees.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization - 45 attendees.

United Nations Industrial Development Organization - 16 attendees.

WMO/UNEP Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - 32 attendees (not much of a surprise, I suppose).

World Bank - 111 attendees (obviously the World Bank is the place to work if you fancy a jolly).

World Health Organization - 50 attendees.

World Intellectual Property Organization - 2 attendees.

World Meteorological Organization - 3 attendees.

World Tourism Organization (surely this sort of thing should be discouraged?) - 4 attendees.

World Trade Organization - 2 attendees.

If you've been following closely, you might have noticed that they're listed in alphabetical order, and could be forgiven for thinking that we're end. Not a bit of it. Now we move on to "Intergovernmental organizations".

Adaptation Fund Board - 6 attendees.

African Centre of Meteorological Application for Development - 23 attendees.

African Development Bank Group - 45 attendees.

African Union Commission - 44 attendees.

African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States - 7 attendees.

Amazon Cooperation Treaty Organization - 4 attendees.

Asian Development Bank - 4 attendees.

Asian-African Legal Consultative Organization (what?) - 6 attendees.

Association of Southeast Asian Nations - 4 attendees.

Banco Centroamericano de Integración Económica - 4 attendees.

Banque Ouest Africaine de Developpement - 5 attendees.

CAB International - 3 attendees.

Caribbean Community Climate Change Centre - 3 attendees.

Caribbean Community Secretariat - 2 attendees.

Center for International Forestry Research - 11 attendees.

Comité permanent inter-états de lutte contre la sécheresse au Sahel - 12 attendees.

Commission des Forêts d'Afrique Centrale - 3 attendees.

Commonwealth Secretariat - 9 attendees.

Consortium of International Agricultural Research Centers - 13 attendees.

Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat - 5 attendees.

Corporación Andina de Fomento - 13 attendees.

Council of Europe - 2 attendees.

Economic Community of Central Africa States - 11 attendees.

Economic Community of West African States - 8 attendees.

Economic Cooperation Organization - 4 attendees.

ECOWAS Regional Centre for Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency - 4 attendees.

European Bank for Reconstruction and Development - 20 attendees.

European Forest Institute - 6 attendees.

European Investment Bank - 32 attendees.

European Patent Office - 5 attendees.

European Space Agency - 11 attendees.

Global Green Growth Institute - 11 attendees.

Global Water Partnership Organisation - 13 attendees.

IGAD Climate Prediction and Applications Centre - 3 attendees.

Institut International du Froid (my French isn't what it was, but aren't they the International COLD Institute? What are they doing here? Haven't they heard ? We're all going to fry) - 4 attendees.

Instituto Interamericano de Cooperación para la Agricultura - 7 attendees.

Inter-American Development Bank - 5 attendees.

Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research - 4 attendees.

Inter-Parliamentary Union (absolutely vital they attend, obviously) - 5 attendees.

International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development - 7 attendees.

International Centre for Research in Agroforestry - 17 attendees.

International Coffee Organization (at least the coffee breaks must have been good) - 4 attendees.

International Energy Agency - 22 attendees.

International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies - 20 attendees.

International Livestock Research Institute - one attendee (are livestock not important, or something?).

International Network for Bamboo and Rattan - 5 attendees (obviously 5 times more important than livestock).

International Organization for Migration - 10 attendees.

International Potato Center - 4 attendees (4 times as important as livestock but not as important as bamboo & rattan).

International Renewable Energy Agency - 16 attendees.

International Transport Forum, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development - 6 attendees.

International Tropical Timber Organization - 3 attendees (presumably not as important as bamboo & rattan).

Islamic Development Bank - 22 attendees (fair play, not one of them has a fancy job title, unlike most of the others)6

International Union for Conservation of Nature - 20 attendees.

League of Arab States - 3 attendees.

Nordic Council of Ministers - 27 attendees.

Nordic Development Fund - 7 attendees.

Nordic Environment Finance Corporation - 23 attendees.

Observatoire du Sahara et du Sahel - 11 attendees (presumably all celebrating the greening of the Sahel).

OPEC Fund for International Development - 3 attendees.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development - 36 attendees.

Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie - 33 attendees.

Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries - 2 attendees.

Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries - 5 attendees.

Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat - 2 attendees.

Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean (what?) - 4 attendees.

Permanent Court of Arbitration - 2 attendees (obviously vital that they attend).

Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe - 14 attendees.

Secretaria General Iberoamericana - 3 attendees.

Secretariat of the Pacific Community - 2 attendees.

Secretariat of the Union for the Mediterranean - 7 attendees.

South Asia Co-operative Environment Programme - 2 attendees.

South Centre - 2 attendees.

Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation EU-ACP - 5 attendees.

The Regional Organization for the Conservation of the Environment of the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden - 5 attendees.

Union Economique et Monétaire Ouest Africaine - 10 attendees.

The truly terrifying thing to me is how pointless so many of these organisations seem to be. If there wasn't a taxpayer-funded teat for them, they wouldn't exist. And all of the above attendees are just the ones who got to have a holiday in Morroco. Goodness knows how many more were left back at the various offices. If anyone can explain to me why it was essential (or even useful) for all of the above people to attend COP22, I'd be very interested.

Before I retired, as a solicitor, I was involved in numerous negotiations. I very quickly learned that speed of progress was in directly inverse proportion to the number of people attending the negotiation. I could lead a course on that for the UN if they want (for a fee of course - might as well get my snout into this extraordinarily large trough:-)).

Dec 9, 2016 at 3:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

A brief extra point by way of comment on the above. It's amazing how many fancy titles people hold in organisations under the UN umbrella. It's also amazing how much duplication there seems to be. It's difficult to see many of these people actually do anything of any use. It's irritating to see the plethora of job titles containing words such as "green", "environment/environmental", "sustainable/sustainability" and "climate change". The UN and the organisations under its umbrella are absolutely imbued with this stuff. Can we really expect scientific independence from another UN-funded body under the UN umbrella - the IPCC?

Dec 9, 2016 at 3:53 PM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

Mark Hodgson

"United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs - 2 attendees."

How many other planets are not effected by Global Waŕming?

I was at University when the East African Famine hit the headlines, leading to Live Aid etc. One of the points rammed home was how much "Aid" money gets swallowed up in lawful admin costs, before the con artists and swindlers get a penny. The amount of money being squandered by the United Nations is obscene.

The Blackmail extracted from Taxpayers by scheming liars is appalling, and I do hope they annoy Trump sufficiently for him to launch investigations into the misappropriation of US money. The EU can't even find fault with it's own accountancy crimes, so I am glad we will be shot of that too.

Dec 9, 2016 at 5:09 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

As you say, I am unpaid too. This is why I rarely bother to discuss your delusions any more.

Dec 9, 2016 at 12:00 AM | Entropic man

I do not believe you. You have been involved in fabricating and propagating delusions, and now you are deluding yourself.

Dec 9, 2016 at 5:13 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Golf Charlie

I think I would know if I was being paid to be here.

Allow me to assure you that any conversations I have with deluded old ladies are purely voluntary.

Dec 9, 2016 at 6:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Entropic Man, I think the fruit bats in your belfry require feeding. Your logic processes are so clearly flawed, it is understandable why you think Climate Science is an honest profession.

Dec 9, 2016 at 9:48 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Moving on to the non-Governmental organisations attending - another one, at random, is Center for Climate and
Energy Solutions, based in USA, as might be inferred from the spelling. Funders include many of the usual suspects, but the citizens of USA, Switzerland, Germany and New Zealand will no doubt be reassured to learn that this is where some of their taxes end up. Not surprisingly, I suppose, they also receive funding from the UN Environment Programme. What a jolly money-go-round.

Dec 10, 2016 at 9:05 AM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

Allow me to assure you that any conversations I have with deluded old ladies are purely voluntary.
Hmmmm… blatantly sexist, this one. If you could include others in this, perhaps racist, too…?

Dec 10, 2016 at 12:09 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Radical Rodent, those fruit bats in Entropic Woman's Belfry are taking up a lot of her time. The Polynesian Headhunting Cannibals that became science teachers in Northern Ireland have become very confused about their own identities, not just everyone else's. Sadly, the long voyage from those distant isles also wrecked their weather and climate forecasting abilities, this may be linked to the switch from the Southern to Northern Hemispheres, where some crucial things happen the other way around.

Skeptical Science's expertise will rotate down the drain in the opposite direction, assuming the sudden deluge does not obstruct the plug hole with all the rubbish.

Dec 10, 2016 at 1:00 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Radical rodent

Within the limits of my information I have accurately described golf charlie.

"deluded"

Golf charlie's scientific beliefs bear very little resemblance to reality.

"old"

She has a haematological disorder, usually associated with age.

"lady"

Gwendolyn is a female name. I assume she is a woman. As a gentleman I call her a lady, giving her the benefit of the doubt.

I don't know her race. Whether she is white, black, brown, yellow or sky blue pink with purple spots does not seem relevant.

Dec 10, 2016 at 7:09 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Also attending COP22 was a director of ZOI Environment Network. Fair play, they only sent one person. According to their 2015 annual report, their funding is received in the following proportions: EU/EEA - 24%; UN ((UNEP, ENVSEC,
UNECE, UNDP, IOM)) - 53%; Switzerland (I assume the Swiss Government - they seem to be based in Switzerland) - 16%; and "other" - 7%. That'll be mostly taxpayers' money, then...

http://www.zoinet.org/web/sites/default/files/publications/Annual_report_2015.pdf

"In 2015, Zoï staff and associates were accountable for 50 tonnes of CO2 emissions, mainly attributable to air travel. Zoï offset these emissions by contributing to an international Gold Standard project. We continue to avoid the avoidable by using trains for shorter distances, and almost all of us bike to work every day"

If they really care about CO2 emissions, wouldn't it be better if the organisation didn't exist and its staff didn't do lots of air miles?

By the way, can anyone tell me what Youth Crime Watch of Nigeria were doing at COP22 and why they had to send 5 people?

Dec 10, 2016 at 7:12 PM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

EM, your powers of deduction are so appalling, no wonder you believe in the lies of climate science. Yes, I have a haematological condition, which you did deduce correctly some months ago.

Mark Hodgson, it is very difficult to speculate on why Youth Crime Watch of Nigeria needed to be present. without making the sort of assumptions based on discrimination, so favoured by EM (see above for details)

The problem with COP 22, like so many Global Warming parties, is that it has involved "Rent-a-Mob", "bums-on-seats", etc on a Global Scale., and as they are not paying, who cares about the cost, especially the air tickets? I am sure that all the party goers thought it was great fun, and a great way of networking, to get an invite to the next party.

Then Trump got elected. Maybe next year, they will have more time to spend doing something useful, without going to free parties, paid for by other people.

In the UK, inner city riots, prison roof-top protests etc, don't happen in the winter when it is pouring with rain and cold. If some crime and civil disturbance is more likely in warmer, sunnier, and drier weather, I can believe it. Whether that type of crime is more common in the UK now, as opposed to 10, 20, 30 or more years ago, I would doubt, but perhaps it is more common in Nigeria now. That may be statistically correct, but another incorrect deduction about cause and effect.

Based on dubious attributions, Global Warming Alarmism has flourished. It must be coincidence that as Global Warming Alarmism has risen to it's own tipping point, Progressive Politicians are sinking in the UK and USA and skating on thin ice all over the EU. I think it is only fair to blame the progressive failure of Progressives on their 97% addiction to Global Warming Alarmism. Unfortunately 97% of Progressives are in Denial about their addiction, and are only making matters worse and more emotionally painful for themselves.

With their ill-gotten gains from spreading panic, Climate Scientists should pay for Rehab Clinics for those struggling with Denial about their addiction to Global Warming. It could be another highly lucrative scam to get into, if only Climate Scientists would pay for something.

Dec 10, 2016 at 8:46 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie