Posts Tagged ‘Kyoto Protocol’

UN climate delegates failing everyone

Monday, November 25th, 2013

Source:  Online Opinion  spider web

Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive!

Sir Walter Scott (1771 – 1832)

For many years, our representatives to the United Nations climate conferences have behaved as if they could make dramatic, headline-grabbing commitments without serious long term consequences. Perhaps they hoped people would forget about their agreements as the years went by and other pressing issued arose. Or maybe they assumed they would no longer be in office when the impact of their decisions would be felt.

The UN climate conference in Warsaw, Poland over the past two weeks has clearly demonstrated that their chickens are finally coming home to roost. UN delegates are actually being held accountable for the climate change problems which those representatives years ago claimed the developed world to be causing.

Developing countries are now demanding that we have an obligation to pay them trillions of dollars for loss and damages, since much of the extreme weather and other problems they are experiencing are supposedly our fault. (more…)

Canadian PM must be held to account for dangerous climate change policy

Thursday, May 16th, 2013

Source: Canadian Freepress  ipcc1

by Tom Harris

Canadians are frustrated by Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s non-answer to critical questions about the world-wide climate change agreement his government supports. Those attending his presentation to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York City on Thursday should ask the Prime Minister why he promotes what is in effect another Kyoto Protocol, even though he condemns the first protocol as worse than useless. (more…)

To Kill IPCC, Cut the Cash

Tuesday, July 12th, 2011

Source:  SPPI

by Dennis Ambler

UN climate chief promotes carbon trading in Africa

I would suggest that many people think that the UN policies on “global warming/climate change/wealth re-distribution, emissions trading, etc” emerge only from the annual Conferences of the Parties, (COPS), such as Copenhagen and Cancun, but I would guess that not many are aware of the regular policy forums and meetings which occur almost on a monthly basis, driving forward the climate agenda, regardless of the serious and frequent blows dealt to the purported science behind that agenda.

If you thought the nonsense was all over, forget it. Take a look at the UNFCCC website where they are already in preparation for the COP 17 event in Durban, South Africa, from November 28th 2011 to December 9th 2011. Read the press release from the UN Climate Change Conference held last month in Bonn:

“A central political question that has crystallized during this session is how further emission reduction commitments by developed countries can be taken forward in the broader context of the emerging climate change regime, said United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres. (more…)

Climate change is simply natural and disaster isn’t imminent

Tuesday, April 6th, 2010

Source:  Modesto Bee

By Richard S. Lindzen

To a significant extent, the issue of climate change revolves around the elevation of the commonplace to an ominous omen. In a world where climate change has been the norm, it’s now taken as punishment for sinful levels of consumption. In a world where we experience temperature changes of tens of degrees in a single day, we treat changes of a few tenths of a degree in some statistical residue, known as the globally averaged temperature anomaly or GATA, as portents of disaster.

Earth has had ice ages and warmer periods. Ice ages have occurred in a 100,000-year cycle for the past 700,000 years, and there have been previous interglacial periods that appear to have been warmer than the present, despite lower carbon-dioxide levels. More recently, we have had the medieval warm period and the little ice age. (more…)

How Al Gore Wrecked Planet Earth

Monday, February 22nd, 2010

Source:  The American Interest

The Washington Post this morning has a strong story on the collapse of the movement to stop climate change through a binding treaty negotiated under UN auspices.  And even the normally taciturn New York Times is admitting that the resignation of the top UN climate change negotiator suggests that no global treaty will be coming this year.

Short summary:  the current iteration of the movement–with its particular political project and goals–is dead.  This will not be news to readers of this blog where the news was announced on February 1, but never mind.

Anyway, as the Post now belatedly acknowledges, the movement to stop climate change through a Really Big and Comprehensive Grand Global Treaty is dead because there is no political consensus in the US to go forward.  It’s dead because the UN process is toppling over from its own excessive ambition and complexity.  It’s dead because China and India are having second thoughts about even the smallish steps they put on the table back in Copenhagen.

Doornail dead. (more…)

Environmental pretexts for land-grabs from private citizens

Friday, January 15th, 2010

From The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

  • An Australian reader writes –

I thought you might be interested in another case of Government effectively stealing freehold property via an environmental agency, in this case the Environmental Protection Agency of Western Australia. There are strong similarities in this case with the situation faced by Peter Spencer, the farmer in New South Wales who was until this week on a hunger-strike halfway up a communications tower on his land, which he is now forbidden to farm because it has been designated a “carbon sink” as a way for Australia to comply with the Kyoto Protocol without actually cutting emissions of carbon dioxide. (more…)

The cruel cost of dodging Kyoto by using farmland as a “carbon sink”

Wednesday, January 13th, 2010

From The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

An Australian farmer writes –

“For the sake of the farmers in Australia, please educate their political leaders on the basics of biology and farming. Consider two very simple points.

“1) Plants sequester the greatest quantity of CO2 at the highest rate while they are rapidly growing.

“2) Farmers have a vested interest in maximizing the amount of plant growth in every last bit of farmland.

“Those simple points show that setting aside farmland to act as a “carbon sink” is counterproductive. The farm fields of the midwestern United States (where I live) are an amazingly effective carbon sink. Using modern farming techniques, literally tons of biomass are created in every acre of farmland, every year. Land that’s “set aside” and not farmed absorbs only a fraction of the CO2.”

Our reply – (more…)

Letter to the Editor of New Scientist

Friday, January 8th, 2010

From Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen

  • New Scientist for 12 December 2009 wrote an editorial comment supporting the Climategate emailers and saying they were not part of any kind of conspiracy.

Dear Editor

Your piece Insight: Why there is no sign of a climate conspiracy in hacked emails (12 December, p. 16) was disappointing. A conspiracy was never alleged by the better informed commentators. Rather, CRU and its collaborators were condemned for the ‘massaging’ of data to suit a cause – the hypothesis of dangerous , anthropogenic global warming – and also for discouraging the publication of material doubting this hypothesis. I am writing as an interested party: The journal Energy & Environment which I now edit, was much maligned in the published emails because it published a number of the papers offensive to the ‘warmers’ and was at one stage threatened with libel. (more…)

The unspeakable BBC: biased even when trying to be unbiased?

Tuesday, December 22nd, 2009

From Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christensen

  • We are honored to publish the following letter to the unspeakable BBC from Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christensen, one of the doughtiest scientists who have upheld scientific truth and integrity despite all pressures and temptations to subit to the New Superstition that is ‘global warming’. Dr. Boehmer-Christensen is the editor of Energy and Environment, a leading climate-science journal that allows scientists skeptical of the official ‘global warming’ theory to publish their papers where other journals have sold out to the money-men behind the scare. Dr. Boehmer-Christensen is here telling the BBC what she thinks of a programme by its political correspondent, Andrew Marr, in which – in a manner almost unprecedented at the BBC – he tried to allow both sides of the climate debate to be reflected.

Sir, – As an ‘expert’ on the science and politics of global warming since the late 1980s and the editor of a journal that has long given climate ‘sceptics’ a voice, I would like to complement the BBC for attempting, this morning on Radio 4 , an open-minded discussion of the science and politics of man-made global warming. Two sides were demonstrated. However, a number of outright mistakes and omission created enough bias to turn the programme into sophisticated  UK government propaganda.

Here are the main faults: