edit: p.s., don't get me wrong, I think Clegg's comments and role at Rio are awful.... but I don't understand how Louise Gray transformed what he said about no longer living in a "neo-colonial" world into her article. Is she simply a fool?

per the article linked in my previous post, here is the passage about Nick Clegg in case they correct it (am I missing something or has Louise Gray taken Clegg's meaning completely wrong):

"Nick Clegg, the UK Deputy Prime Minister, admitted he was “disappointed” with the outcome."

[LOUISE GRAY]: "He blamed a ‘neocolonial world’ where developing countries that want to continue using fossil fuels to develop, like China and Brazil, have more power than the West and Europe."

"He explained that countries like India see the green economy as a “euphemism for protectionism” that will stop them using huge natural resources of coal to grow."

[CLEGG QUOTE]: "“We no longer live in a neocolonial world where a small number of Governments can get together and write a text and say to the rest of the world you have to accept this," he said. "The developing world is much more assertive.""

Louise Gray seems to have botched her explanation of what Nick Clegg is saying. His quote says that because it is no longer a "neo-colonial" world a few leaders cannot dictate the outcome at Rio-20. He blames China and "developing" nations for not playing along with EU plans. Louise Gray turns that into some blather about how the "neo-colonial" world is that China will not follow the direction of the EU. She seems seriously confused.

However, my favorite (so far) silly comment coming from Rio-20 has to be the words of my own nation's Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, who is trying desperately to put a happy face on what is such a bitter disappointment for all the world's CAGW extremists. Clinton says it's all ok because the final doc refers to a "green economy" (I'd rather avoid such nonsense but I don't think the phrase in the final doc is the great victory she wants to portray it to be -- rather it is the least they could possibly have gotten at such an event):

Louise Gray on Rio-20

"However Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, insisted that the conference was a success."

"She said that the inclusion of ‘green economy’ in the text has given the concept much more power and will encourage both government and business to start cutting carbon and investing in renewables."

This is from a year ago (June 2011) but it's worth a review and update. Nice h/t and quotation from Steve McIntyre. The article is far too accommodating to the Green terms of debate (I don't see COST mentioned anywhere), but it does indicate how easily the numbers are puffed by people advocating "renewables" (click passage for article):

"...Alex Salmond, the Scottish First Minister, is also an enthusiast for renewables. Since first taking office the target for electricity production in Scotland from renewable sources has been increased from 50 to 80 per cent by 2020, and recently he’s taken to saying he’s going for 100 per cent by the same year."

report by Pat Michaels et al is well worth attention:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/Global-Climate-Change-Impacts.pdf

Many corrections to CAGW hysteria....