Developing nations furious over climate text

They are upset because they see the money disappearing.

If Eugene Terre'Blanche said this guy's surname out aloud, would people want to drag him before the Human Rights Commission?

And there goes the big old begging bowl. What is obvious to all that want to see is that global warming is nothing but the goose that lays the golden egg and as such a tool for the restribution of perceived unfair wealth. Shouldn't the G77 be called the S77, or rather the Begging Bowl 77?

132 developing countries, and they choose Sudan to represent them! WTF?

@Jon, ha! well spotted. iesh! Yes, furious these nations are, because they've each bulk ordered their fleets of BMW & 'Benz already, and now it looks like the pie might not be quite so big.

There was a lot of talk before Copehagen about the OECD countries (and specifically the US, UK and EU) coming up with their own climate agreement and ditching the Kyoto protocol. I'm not sure how much of a story this actually is and how much is just media hype...

I hope they don't get a cent.

The criticisms above miss the point. This is not the developing world with begging bowls. Rather it is the developing world asking for just compensation for impacts that they are suffering, and the equal right to development. The developed world is the polluter, yet most impacts will be felt by the developing world, who are now being derived equivalent rights to use “dirty” energy to develop. In effect without compensation the developing world is entrenching their developed status at the rest of the worlds expense. In fact many positive impacts from climate change will be experienced by America and Canada – hotter and wetter is great for their agricultural production. Hotter even helps Canada exploit it tar sand fields and create more pollution. You can be sure that whatever comes out of Copenhagen will fall short of the developed world compensating for its centuries of abuse of the worlds carbon space.

If Zuma and his ilk are so concerned about climate change, why aren't they driving small, energy-efficient cars, like the Toyota Prius, instead of huge gas-guzzling R1 million Beamers?? Where is the gvt's long-term plan to reduce carbon emissions? Why are new houses for the poor not fitted with solar panels as a matter of course? Why all those overseas visits in private or army jets? If I were the West, I'd want to be sure that my money was actually going to be used to combat climate change, instead of being just another gift to the corrupt politicians.

Excuse my ignorance with some aspects about climate change,Listenning to some comments about Developing nations being Begging Bowl 77, I wonder how much of development will developing nations be able to do without industrialism and where will they get money to be productive without polluting the enviroment since some don't have money never mind the fact that in some countries the is bad leadership, but the fact is they don't do we condem them? and the rich nations that are wher they are at the expense of some developing nations and some developing nations are already starting to feel the effects of climate change, do we say the poor helpless people should suffer, yes I agree the should be accountability from developing nations leaders

So this is the era of global socialism.

As someone has said, you can't multiply wealth by dividing it.

Graham von maltitz on December 9, 2009, 9:15 am Thank you very much for putting things into perspective for those who do not understand Climate Change, CDM, etc. I so appreciate it. It seems as if some people are hell bent on rubbishing every aspect into a black and white, superior inferior thing. This article atlaest shows how people react when they know zero about a subject

Graham V M: your comment is a welcome breath of fresh air!

"As someone has said, you can't multiply wealth by dividing it."

But you can get wealth by stealing it - as Graham mentioned above, these talks are framed around the idea that for centuries the developed world has ransacked and exploited the developing world for resources; it has obtained these resources for next-to-nothing, and in using them has polluted the environment on a global scale. Equity lies at the heart of these talks, and it will be impossible for a treaty to be drawn up without recognising that.

Regarding transferring money to developing countries - one of the main aims of the Kyoto protocol (and the CDM) was to allow rich countries to reduce their emissions by engaging reduction projects in developing countries. CO2 is a global problem - reducing 1 ton in India or the US will have the same effect on the atmosphere, but it will be a LOT cheaper in India. The idea of the CDM is to SAVE money, not create it - to let the market decide where emissions can be cut most efficiently.

It's most hypocritical for world governments to lecture everyone about reducing greenhouse gases when they spent time flying around the world for countless conferences. There are just too many world jamborees. I will just name a few - UN, AU, Sadc, EU, G8, G20, now G77, East Asia Community, South American Confederation, NATO, China-Africa, East Africa Union, West Africa Union,Non-Aligned Movement, Arab Confederation,Food Summit, Climate Change, etc.

Most poor countries are not developing at all anyway, never have been.

Wow - there are some silly arguments here.

Basically, it comes down to a few facts (and I mean FACTS):

1) Global warming is caused (and being caused) by rich countries.
2) Poor countries are facing (and will face) most of the negative consequences.

In any communal setting, one would expect that if person A caused problems for person B, person A should do more work to fix the problem. That's all that is happening here.

If poor countries cannot afford to cut carbon emissions, they won't cut carbon emissions. If poor countries don't cut carbon emissions, they will violate the terms of whatever accord is about to be signed. If poor countries violate the accord, then two things might happen: 1) the accord will be scrapped - this is very bad because it means that rich countries will not cut their emissions; or 2) the poor countries will have to pay some kind of penalty - this is also quite bad.

Politically speaking, leaders of rich countries (esp the US) won't be able to convince their citizenship that it's a good idea to adopt an onerous accord unless EVERYONE has adopted that accord. Therefore it is in the interests of the rich countries to make the text of the accord "fair".

Greed, greed and more greed. No-one will agree until their voter base starts dying by the millions, because politicians and political parties are elected on a short term basis by virtue of corporate handouts. Our world is based on the wrong values.

The developing nations are right to feel aggrieved, nations like the US use a completely disproportionate amount of power for their population and then seek equality. Those fatties should cut down on their burgers and SUVs.

Just enjoy the beauty of this world while we still have one. For however long it lasts. Maybe after we've ruined and emptied the planet we will have the technology to recreate species through DNA. What makes me laugh is the endless arguments about how to effect sustainablility when most of the problem would be solved with manadatory sterilisations worldwide after one child. But that will never happen as millions of broodmares shout "But what about my rights!"

It is only a draft. Even so it is not as if the developed nations 'developed for spite', it is an accident of history!
It is not about compensation - the most pressing needs now are for the emissions to stop and alternatives put in place as rapidly as possible. The developing nations should have their heads down working on this problem instead of bleating. The developed nations have created the problem, sure, but are now aware of it and are trying to sort themselves out. Allowable numbers for what can be emitted should be the criterea. Also Amercia must not dump its toxic waste on other shores and neither should carbon emissions be divided by them into a less used space.
That is so wrong and counter-productive. The emissions from everywhere must go down and now. No more talking.

ZE wrote -"
Basically, it comes down to a few facts (and I mean FACTS):

1) Global warming is caused (and being caused) by rich countries.
2) Poor countries are facing (and will face) most of the negative consequences.

Hardly facts. Just emotional unproven twaddle.
There is absolutely no proven connection between CO2 and global warming. Despite what the IPCC would like you to believe.
The most important contributor to the IPCC has been busted, fraudulently altering temperatures upwards in an attempt to "prove" the claim.
The west certainly owes Africa or the 3rd world nothing.
In fact they should send them a bill for the infrastructure built for them and for "knowledge transfer"!!
Despite billions poured into Africa most countries are dysfunctional entities run by crackpot dictators voted in by really stupid voters. And the situation worsens every day. Take just ONE country in Africa - Ethiopia and read this article from the Irish Independent - it's pretty harsh but is it untrue??

Irish Independent
By Kevin Myers
30.10.2009

Kevin Myers: Africa has to learn lessons — the hard way if necessary

“Why food shortages in Ethiopia again?” Go on: the answer please. Question two. “Why are we always being asked for money to keep people alive?” The answer, again, please. Question three. “What is the Government doing. . ?” Oh please.
True, later he pointed to a rise in food prices as a sort of general explanation for why six million Ethiopians now need feeding. (But food prices have risen round the world. And six million people are not queueing for foreign relief in India or Brazil). He added that a number of measures were needed, including watershed management, environmental regeneration, greater use of drought resistant crops, da da da da. . . “It takes time to achieve structural strange,” he cautioned. Indeed it does. But if structural change is being simply overwhelmed by population increase, then it can achieve nothing.
There’s one word that all our aid agencies never use when asking us for more money: demographics. I’ll go over this again (just in case there’s some other body of state-employed bullying layabouts which hasn’t yet hauled me up before the Press Council or An Garda Siochana for having the temerity to disagree with them, and they think now it’s their turn to have a go). So let’s stick with Ethiopia, which at the height of the famine 25 years ago, had a population of around 34 million. Its population (conservatively) is now 72 million.
Excuse me. Just what on earth are we doing, continuing to sponsor, subsidise, promote, encourage and reward population growth at such catastrophic levels? What will we get, but only tens of millions more Ethiopians expecting us to feed them? Then scores of millions; then hundreds of millions. Though of course, at some stage, sooner or later, we shall stop feeding them, simply because. . . oh, just because.
Ethiopia is the sterling exemplar of why it’s time we seriously re-examined our responses to the gathering catastrophe that is Africa.
One, its population growth is out of control. Two, it cannot feed the people that it has, never mind the future population it is generating. Three, its already deplorable water-management skills are deteriorating. Four, rapid environmental degradation is reducing the absolute amount of agricultural land available to grow crops. Five, Islamic fundamentalism is growing amongst Ethiopia’s millions of Muslims. Six, for all the billions poured into Ethiopia, we haven’t even demanded the basic quid pro quo, that Ethiopia abandon female circumcision, which kills thousands of little girls every year.
In other words, this is the genuine nightmare state, whose only prospects are more population growth, more environmental degradation, and more famine, prompting rescue and chronic dependency: to be followed by more population growth, more environmental degradation and more famine, prompting another rescue, and an even more chronic dependency: followed by even more population growth, et cetera. And that’s it. That’s been the pattern over the past 25 years, with absolutely no prospect of that pattern changing — none whatever.
Moreover, this vicious and idiotic cycle is protected and perpetuated by a coercive and dogmatic silence in the lands which fund it. Even to say this cycle is self-destructive madness is to court allegations of racism. When I wrote on this subject last year, I was subjected to a criminal investigation by An Garda Siochana, one half-witted prig in the ‘Irish Daily Mail’ virtually compared me
with Eichmann, and the Press Council said my remarks were “offensive to Africans in Ireland”. Ah, the poor dears.
Listen. There should be nothing quite as offensive to Africans — here or anywhere — as Africans starving to death in Africa, by their tens of millions, as they will certainly be, unless Africa’s headlong rush to armageddon is halted. That means Africans having to learn simple things like sexual continence, and long-term planning, and deferred reward. We cannot teach them. They must teach themselves these lessons, the hard way if necessary.
They have not yet known the hard way. Ethiopia was rescued by outsiders from its self-made famine 25 years ago, and it then rewarded this kindness by promptly doubling its population, but without doubling its own food supply or its economic base. This is stupidity on an epic scale, for which only Ethiopia is answerable. Furthermore, it’s long overdue that the Irish people abandoned their patronising and racist conceit that we can save Africa. We can’t. Only Africans can save Africa, and the longer we interfere in their business, and the longer we continue to reward the outstretched begging bowl, then the longer it will take Africa to learn that basic lesson. ends....)

No wonder the 3rd world "so enthusiastically embrace the CO2 theory!!!!

Dennis Hoines said:
"absolutely no proven connection between CO2 and global warming..."

err ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Co2-temperature-plot.svg

That looks like a connection to me!

sue topham, you are quite clueless. World leaders (rich and poor) take their cue from the IPCC and they (all of them) are therefore in agreement when it comes to reducing CO2: they all know that CO2 emissions need to be reduced and it needs to be done now. They know this.

The problem is economic and political:

Economy - Many economies of many countries (especially poor ones) rely heavily on carbon. If industries such as energy and agriculture were to cease functioning, there would be widespread unemployment. Leaders understand that these industries need to remain functional while reducing GHG emissions. In order to do this, money is needed (for research, skills, technology etc). But the thing about being poor is that you have no money. So poor countries need money from rich countries to fix this problem.

Politics - Leaders (rich and poor) need to convince voters that economic growth (i.e. employment) will have to be sacrificed to reduce emissions. Rich leaders have the added burden of trying to convince voters that economic growth will have to be sacrificed to help other countries reduce emissions...

Thank God I was right last week in these comments sections of The M & G.

Copenhagen is crumbling:

More than 140 scientists challenge UN's climate claims in Open Letter to Secretary-General of United Nations

http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/

Can we now kick the power hungry IPCC at the UN, the AGW frauds and the socialist politician out the door and have a mature debate on pollution and ways to prevent it. Real scientist welcome.

AGW "scientists" had there turn and they faked their data. Cheers. Now it is the climate realist turn.

Ref: Dennis Hoines

Little statistic for you. Ethiopia is 13x the size of Ireland. If Ethiopia had the same population-density as Ireland there would be 82-million. So much for sexual continence, hey!

That someone from Ireland could forget the Irish Famine which resulted in over a million deaths and an equal number of emigrants, as the result of similar sentiments expressed by the English towards the Irish, is simply too ironic for words. One Nassau Senior, an economics professor at Oxford University at the time, wrote that the Famine "would not kill more than one million people, and that would scarcely be enough to do any good.", as his response to the "Irish Question"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Co2-temperature-plot.svg

That looks like a connection to me! "

ZE, I'm not sure that you're quite following the debate here.
All those figures posted on wikipedia are from the IPCC and guess where they got their figures from??
Since 1998 CO2 levels have RISEN yet global temperatures have gone DOWN.
That's why Phil Jones at East Anglia University CRU and his world-wide cronies devised a computer programme to show the REVERSE.
If the IPCC had any commitment to truthfulness they would withdraw the figures!

Dennis, once again you're only reading the bits you want to. Firstly, look at the sources for the graph that ZE posted - the temperature data was taken from ice cores. Nothing to do with the CRU.

Secondly, the CRU helps to compile the HADCRUT3 temperature record. Let's for arguments sake take your side and dismiss that whole record as flawed - there are many other completely independant temperature records that all show the same upward warming trend. The NASA GISS, the UAH and RSS satellite measurement, the NCDC land measurements, tree ring widths, coral growth patterns, isotope variations in ice cores; they ALL show very similar levels of warming and they all confirm the consensus position.

So keep trying; keep trying to turn this into the conspiracy you need it to. The data and evidence are completely and overwhelmingly against you.

The NASA GISS temperature record since 1880:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

The UAH and RSS satellite records since 1975

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png

The NCDC/NOAO temp record since 1880

http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/NOAA-NCDC-Temperature-Record.gif

James unit wrote: "
So keep trying; keep trying to turn this into the conspiracy you need it to. The data and evidence are completely and overwhelmingly against you."

James old chap - the only people turning anything into a conspiracy are the CRU at EAU. Read the e-mails again.
And please read this -

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” – Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme

How sick is that???

As always, Dennis, you're taking quotes out of context and applying ruductio ad absurdum. At this point, there is little point in continuing the discussion. Skeptics like you routinely misrepresent the science, build up straw men, present the facts disingenuously, and state the same false arguments ad nauseum.

Oh btw, temperatures have NOT decreased since 1998. 1998 was extraordinarily hot so you're working off a large base (ahem...straw man). Here is the data:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.txt

Clearly temperatures have been increasing over the last decade. Global warming doesn't say that every year is hotter than the previous year - it says that there is a gradual increase in the average temperature of the planet.

"Hundreds of millions of people will soon perish in smog disasters in New York and Los Angeles...the oceans will die of DDT poisoning by 1979...the U.S life expectancy will drop to 42 years by 1980 due to cancer epidemics" Paul Erlich Ramparts,1969.
This "nutritional disaster seems likely to overtake humanity in the 1970s (or at the latest, the 1980s)..A situation has been created that could lead to a billion or more people starving to death" Erlich,The End of Affluence,1974.
"The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind" Nigel Calder,International Wildlife,June 1975
"The rapid cooling of the earth since World War II is also in accord with the increased air pollution associated with industrialization and a exploding population" Reid Bryson,Enviromental Roulette,1971.
"Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to mantain funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates, and policy makers" MIT's Dr. Richard Lindzen Sloan Professor of Meteorology.

"To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective and being honest" Climate Alarmist Sthephen Schneider, Discover magazine October 1989

To clear the air I would like to admit I am not and climate pundit by any stretch of the imagination. I would also like to add I am some what of a skeptic, for a couple of reasons most recently the hacked emails, why would they hide information? (This added further fuel to my deeply ingrained distrust of statistics, which can be manipulated and framed to proved anything you like). There is so much contradictory information out there, and scientists are so desperate for grants, that it is difficult to know what's really true.

Secondly, my biggest concern as a member of a developing nation, is the idea of a cap and trade system, which I believe is will limit the industrial capability of developing nations further increasing the power of developed nations . It is no secret that African Governments are the most corrupt in the world., there is also not an example in Africa of a consolidated democracy that has any infrastructure or industry as result of long term planning. So why would African leaders not sell the majority of its pollution credit at the expense of his nation? In the end the cost of the pollution credits will be passed on to the consumer as the cost will simply be factored in to the price of the goods. With fear and the perceived social importance of being "environmentally friendly" being the motivation for us buying overpriced produce. (Just think of organic produce)

By the way what happened to the hole in the ozone layer? Surely this should get a mention at a climate change convention?

If man is causing global warming, it is a great shame that a worthy cause has been hijacked my political and economic interests.

As always, Dennis, you're taking quotes out of context and applying ruductio ad absurdum. At this point, there is little point in continuing the discussion. Skeptics like you routinely misrepresent the science, build up straw men, present the facts disingenuously, and state the same false arguments ad nauseum.

Oh btw, temperatures have NOT decreased since 1998. 1998 was extraordinarily hot so you're working off a large base (ahem...straw man). Here is the data: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.txt Clearly temperatures have been increasing over the last decade. Global warming doesn't say that every year is hotter than the previous year - it says that there is a gradual increase in the average temperature of the planet.

Miguel, the examples of alarmism you cite were not held by the mainstream science of the day.

Z E "Wikipedia = fail". A sign at all major universities around that world, regarding Wikipedia as a source. Any one can contribute to Wikipedia

Hi Warren. Two comments:

1) If we don't implement a "cap+trade" system, it will be something like a carbon tax (e.g. a barrel of oil would cast $150 after the carbon tax) but the right-wingers will have serious problems with that. In the end, it will probably be a weird combination of the two and I'm not sure which is preferable...

2) Sure, anyone can edit Wikipedia (I'm very involved myself) but Wikipedia STILL has a lower error rate than Encarta, Britanica etc. Mistakes are generally very quickly fixed (esp on controversial topics) because so many people edit there. And the best thing about Wikipedia is that it tells you exactly what its sources are - look at the sources for the articles I linked. Finally, the temperature record I linked to above is from NASA, not Wikipedia.

Who edits posts? are they experts on the subject?

I still think either a tax or cap and trade will stifle developing countries. And like always it comes down to the bottom line... the climate is a distant second.

ZE wrote "Skeptics like you routinely misrepresent the science, build up straw men, present the facts disingenuously, and state the same false arguments ad nauseum."

ZE old chap, you are living in wikipedia La La land! :)
It is the mainstream scientists preaching the lie of global warming that, to use your own words - "...routinely misrepresent the science...."
They are the ones guilty of this massive fraud - not those who merely wish to question their data!!
But not a word of condemnation from you on this. Or on Al Gore's juvenile documentary that is full of lies, distortions and half-truths! Do you think this unethical behaviour is OK??
Obviously the IPCC do - they shared a Nobel prize with Gore and remained silent - even though it was proven that he was a fraudster too!! But I guess scientists are just people who will do ANYTHING for money - even make up false data.
The Climate Research Unit - a MAJOR world-wide player, was responsible for collating and providing temperature data to the IPCC.
This criminal deception and fraudulent activity was not uncovered by the holy trinity of "consensus science", the "peer-revue process", or the "independent minds" at the IPCC - who would have covered it up anyway.
It was the people you vilify and call playground names who brought the TRUTH to the world.
Yet there has been no condemnation of these disgusting fraudsters.
Instead we have been subject to endless spin from the IPCC about "the theft of the e-mails", and "the data still points to CO2 and global warming."
Given the depth and breadth of the deception across the world, do these arrogant fools really think that any person of reasonable intelligence would believe them???
Especially now that they claim that the original records of temperatures have been "lost"!!
These money grubbing, cavalier crooks must think that we are all stupid, just because we do not have long scraggly beards, walk around in white coats and wear sandals with socks!!
The Climategate scandal will not go away. And there are probably more revelations to come.
Recent opinion polls show that people who question CO2's connection to global warming is growing daily.
They will soon be in a majority in the UK and the USA.
Even the "father" of global warming, Hansen, has called for carbon trading and Copehagen to be disbanded!
The ballot box will see many of these "false figure" institutions kicked into touch.
Thus the inordinate and unjustifiable haste of the IPCC and their cabal of crooked scientists "to have a deal signed" at all costs.

Look, Dennis, we will have to wait for a full investigation to figure out what really happened at UEA. All we have at the moment are two sentences, which were cherry-picked out of context from several thousand other emails going back for over a decade - we can hardly draw valid inferences from that. And even if the investigation shows that ONE scientist at ONE university tried to prevent skeptics from reviewing his work - that will not overturn the scientific consensus on climate change.

Your comment regarding Hansen is just plain disingenuous - please stop doing that. Hansen's criticism of what might happen in Copenhagen is based on his belief that any new accord will not be implememted quickly enough to prevent warming. I know you know that because you commented in that article!

ZE wrote -"And even if the investigation shows that ONE scientist at ONE university tried to prevent skeptics from reviewing his work - that will not overturn the scientific consensus on climate change."

ZE - you still refuse to acknowledge the depth and breadth of the deceit!!
One scientist??? One university????
Come on EZ whose leg are you trying to pull - your own??
Even George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents, because the shocking fact is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics.
Their importance cannot be overestimated.
What we are looking at here is a group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than ANY others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
That's a quote from George himself.
Also, Phil Jones has been forced out and the police are "talking" to him.
Let's hope he gets a jail sentence for fraud. If he was a company director, he would already be in jail without bail!!
As far as Hansen is concerned - he is on record as being completely against "carbon trading" which is all they seem to talk about at Hoax-enhagen and this is why he expressed the view that he hopes the conference will fail.
And as far as waiting for an investigation - your naivety is BREATHTAKING!!!
Do you really believe that after participating in the temperature fraud, the the IPCC can credibly conduct an investigation???
Even the UK has compromised their investigation by appointing a Climategate Investigator who is a member of a vehemently Pro-Man Made Global Warming Organization!!
A civil servant, Muir Russel who is a member of one of the most vehemently pro man-made global warming advocacy organizations in Europe which also has direct ties to the IPCC has been handed the job of whitewashing the investigation into the University of East Anglia, while absurdly billing himself as impartial and unconnected to climate science.
Between you Al Gore, the United Nations, the IPCC and a bunch of money grubbing, grant-hungry fraudulent CO2ers you must think the world is populated by idiots.
Every move the alarmists have made in the past three months has shot themselves in the foot.
They have hardly ANY credibility left except in their closed, comfortable little coterie that has refused point blank to allow anyone other than their crooked buddies to have sight of their data!!
Dear me, what a fiasco! Their seedy little world has been fully exposed for what it is.
The sooner we get rid of these mendacious little bearded fools the better.

Dennis, you guys can't misrepresent the science because you don't have any. Everything you post is the same bla-bla-bla nonsense - no science, no data, no facts. Bla bla bla bla bla

Z E - A carbon tax would be simpler, but it's politically impossible in the US right now; some Americans would rather default on their national debt than pay more tax. But if a cap-and-trade is implemented properly it could be just as effective. The devil is in the details - set the cap too high and you risk driving the price of CO2 down to a level where it's irrelevent (that happened in the EU ETS in 2006 - after the cap was set too high the CO2 price crashed from around 12 Euro per ton to something like 0.10 Euros). But get it right and it'll do what it's supposed to - provide an efficient market mechanism to meet a set reduction target at the least cost. The cap-and-trade system worked great to reduce CFC's in the 90s.

The best solution is probably to have both - a small carbon tax for consumer stuff like petrol and plastics, and a cap-and-trade system for industrial producers and companies. That way you can create both proper price signals to move towards renewable energy (thru a carbon tax) and make sure that you meet reduction targets (thru a carbon cap).

Dennis, please can you provide proof of the "fact" that you keep spouting that Al Gore is a fraud? The only issues with the film as far as I can see are the debates around the hurricane issue, invasive plants (and these two issues are yet to be proven incorrect- they are still a point of debate among scientists), and I noticed an anomaly in the way he speaks of ice core data.
And like I have said before- his film was not informing the science, or the scientists. It was a call to action for an average American audience. He won the Nobel PEACE price. not one for science.

And like I have said before, the UEA data is not relevant to or referenced by any of my research, or that of my colleagues.
The numbers look the same to me, as do the results. How do you explain that?

And its funny that, given your criticism of consensus science, that you now remark on what percentage of the population believes or does not believe in AGW. Don't forget what percentage of the US population believes in UFOs and the idea that the earth was created in 7 days.

And Dennis, that Maurice Strong quote is only ever found out of context in denialist sites.. do you even know what it alludes to, or have you taken it at face value?

He was imagining a worst case scenario, and putting those words into a character's mouth.

"He envisioned a small group of world leaders concluding that the rich countries were the "principle risk to the Earth." This group then created a plan to get the rich countries to "sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment." When the rich countries refused, the group decided "the only hope for the planet" was for the industrialized civilizations to collapse. He pondered, "Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?" "

A worst case scenario, where no one takes responsiblity for their impact on the planet.

Try again, Dennis.

P Lawson, 58% of Americans think that creationism (that God created the world around 6000 years ago) is definitely or probably true....

http://www.gallup.com/poll/18748/Most-Americans-Tentative-About-OriginofLife-Explanations.aspx

Thanks for that, James.

james Unit wrote "Dennis, you guys can't misrepresent the science because you don't have any. Everything you post is the same bla-bla-bla nonsense - no science, no data, no facts. Bla bla bla bla bla"

James your are quite amusing for a chap who never responds or answers a question. Rather you prefer to playground name call and insult. The standard ploy of doom and gloom alarmists. As far as your "carbon tax" nonsense not even Hansen agrees with you and from the bun fight at Hoax-enhagen it seems the idea will be stillborn.
P Lawson - You also must live in media wasteland or only listen to 702 or the SABC.
Gore's documentary was thrown out of schools in the Uk by a High Court Judge. The US congress came to the same conclusion.
There are so many lies and half truths one does not know where to begin - from the fake polar bear picture to the ludicrous claims of sea levels.
The man is a compete IDIOT who even claims he invented the Internet!!
And P Lawson - what amazes me about all the doom and gloom alarmists is, how like politicians - THEY ARE AL QUOTED OUT OF CONTEXT????? Every last one of them!!!
Duh????
Your attempt to whitewash his shocking statements are weasel words that Phil Jones and the rest of his crooked scientist friends world-wide would applaud.
And after plugging away at how marvellous "consensus science" is and the "peer review process" - now that is has failed dramatically - you still cannot bring yourself to discard this dysfunctional and rather preposterous concept!! Ag shame man, just keep digging the same old hole!!
And as far as more and more people rejecting the CO2 hoax, it is not because they have anything to try and prove - but rather because the so called global warming scientists have never been able to prove anything - apart from how manipulative and dishonest they are.
Oh and James Unit - one last chance for you to actually RESPOND...Pray tell what happened to the original raw data at the UEA ????
Is this the level of scientific competence that is supposed to get the world spending TRILLIONS???
Or have they been quoted "out of context"???
CO2 causes global warming gets more and more unravelled everyday!!

Dennis, you really are a card.

It was not thrown out of schools, and the case around that did not come from anyone with any background knowledge of science. Both the US and American case revolved around the idea of showing a specific standpoint in schools (much like the evolution/creationism debate) and both cases ended with the conclusion that the films was largely correct. The condition for further showing (I cannot remember if it was the US or UK case) was that a fact sheet correcting a few statements/showing latest data be presented with the film.

And you reasoning is very flawed if you think that pointing out the context of that Maurice Strong quote is not highly relevant. To quote your own last sentence " CO2 causes global warming ". See what I mean about context? Don't ask me to explain in terms any simpler than that.
And no comment about the research that me, my immediate colleagues and 265 other scientists are conducting that has nothing to do with the EAU?

Interesting.

Wrong again Dennis - Hansen advocates a carbon 'fee-and-dividend' system. In his own words:

"a gradually rising carbon fee would be collected at the mine or port of entry for each fossil fuel (coal, oil and gas). The fee would be uniform, a certain number of dollars per ton of carbon dioxide in the fuel."

Sounds awfully like a carbon tax to me.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/opinion/07hansen.html?_r=1

And I've responded to you many times about the CRU - the scientists responsible were wrong and the individuals involved need to be investigated. Look up at my post earlier; I'll paste it here to save you the trouble:

The CRU helps to compile the HADCRUT3 temperature record. Let's for arguments sake take your side and dismiss that whole record as flawed - there are many other completely independant temperature records that all show the same upward warming trend. The NASA GISS, the UAH and RSS satellite measurement, the NCDC land measurements, tree ring widths, coral growth patterns, isotope variations in ice cores; they ALL show very similar levels of warming and they all confirm the consensus position.

I know you read that because you quoted it - to summarise: the CRU scandal looks bad for the few scientists involved, but THERE'S SO MUCH OTHER DATA OUT THERE THAT IS COMPLETELY UNRELATED AND IT ALL POINTS TO THE SAME CONCLUSION. Clear?

James Unit wrote:"THERE'S SO MUCH OTHER DATA OUT THERE THAT IS COMPLETELY UNRELATED AND IT ALL POINTS TO THE SAME CONCLUSION. Clear? "

Dearie me, having been conned by the IPCC for years - are we really supposed to believe THESE figures now!!
Despite the fact that requests to view this data over the years has been REFUSED!!
This is exactly the game that Phil Jones and his crooked cronies around the world were up to - and if you READ the e-mails you will see there were more than a "few" scientists.
What are all these global warming alarmist scientists hiding????
What are they scared of??
It is quite evident that the "dogs are running the butchery."
There is now BILLIONS at stake in this lucrative scam industry.
Jobs, stand to be lost, grants cut etc etc..
Everything is being done to desperately whitewash the situation to ;protect the incoming moolah!
But each day ground is being lost.
Even NASA has had their data questioned by a Canadian - who showed them where they were WRONG!!
And for the record, Hansen - the climate "genius" who predicted in 1989 that parts of New York would be under water (Yeah right)- did in fact denounce "carbon trading" as this quote from the Guardian clearly shows:
"Hansen, in repeated appearances before Congress beginning in 1989, has done more than any other scientist to educate politicians about the causes of global warming and to prod them into action to avoid its most catastrophic consequences. But he is vehemently opposed to the carbon market schemes – in which permits to pollute are bought and sold – which are seen by the EU and other governments as the most efficient way to cut emissions and move to a new clean energy economy"....ends)

So Hansen contradicts himself yet again and looks even more foolish because as you and I both know - New York is not under water.
Almost every aspect of alarmist CO2 research stinks. Billions are being spent annually in a vain attempt to prove the link without success.
Either way, it's time the IPCC and research groups like the EAU were shut down.
(Hey if they're right like they claim they are - why do they need continuing billions in gravy train money for research for something they know already!! :)
Hopefully a new government in the UK will get rid of the loony labour party and their commitment to this huge waste of money.
The Americans are buying none of it and their EPA is about to get a bloody nose in the Supreme Court.
So James old chap -seems I am not so "wrong again".

@ Z E Those views were embraced by scientists, media, and popular culture, there are even movies to contribute to the scare, some even recent as Dennis Quaid, "The Day After Tomorrow". What was to blame for global cooling? Of course CO2!!
http://biggovernment.com/2009/12/04/climategate-so-wheres-the-oh-snap-email/#more-40506

There's no consensus, there's troubled data and yes I will be referencing Fox, just because that's the only news chain that hasn't been caught blatanty lying or hiding news around here, that's why their ratings...
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/12/08/john-lott-climate-gate-global-warming-east-anglia/

Dim Sum - needless to say more Dim than bright. Whilst I will not check the equation I must make the following comments. A large part of Ethopia consists of arid land. Thus a true measure is the area that is not arid land. The Irish being devout Catholics, until recently, it was against the law to use or take any form of birth control, hence in the last century population expansion, which it does not take much brain power to work out, that the larger the number of people, the more devastating a famine will be. Simple excercise is to give a family of 4 a bag of mielie meel and a family of 8 a bag of mielie meel. Which family will survive the longest. A simple sum explains it all. Too many people in a situation of famine will drain the food quicker, so you cannot put the blame entirely on other nations.
Then as Ella Hume suggested in her comment that instead of the big cars, why are African leaders not leading by example and getting fuel efficient cars. Africa must also start planning and doing things themselves, such as family planning etc.

You're not the sharpest tool in the shed Dennis - Hansen is opposed to cap-and-trade because it relies on buying permits that ALLOW you to POLLUTE. That's the bit he doesn't like: but he supports implementing a carbon tax as a fee-and-dividend program where producers pay a fee depending on the CO2 content of their goods (i.e. a tax) and a percentage of that fee is then rebated back to ordinary consumers. His argument is actually that cap-and-trade is too weak and stronger measures are needed.Both schemes tax CO2, and both are meant to raise the price of fossil fuels.

The rest of your post is just bla bla bla bla bla bla bla...all the other temperature records are freely available, most on the internet, the IPCC's published predictions from the 1990s are still accurate and actually underestimate most of the changes observed in the past 20 years, and the House and the Senate in the US have just rejected the Republican attempt to stop the EPA.

James Unit wrote "You're not the sharpest tool in the shed Dennis - Hansen is opposed to cap-and-trade because it relies on buying permits that ALLOW you to POLLUTE. That's the bit he doesn't like: but he supports implementing a carbon tax"

I had no idea that you were privy to the mind of Hansen; such as it may or may not be functioning rationally.
However that may be, there is no record in his juvenile rants to congress that reflect your figmentary insights.
So perhaps you dreamed it James - like most of the other nonsense claims in your postings which sound like a one string banjo.
As far as data being available to all - it seems you are suffering from the same cavalier dishonesty that the crooked scientists at UEA -
So far, the spotlight has been on the University of East Anglia and its refusal to release their surface temperature data, by far the most comprehensive long-term worldwide surface data available, but global warming advocates reassure us that this shouldn’t really concern us because some other data sources reportedly show the same thing. Unfortunately, the problem of secretiveness is hardly limited to the University of East Anglia.
Take Queen’s University in Belfast. It has amassed one of the longest-running data collections on tree rings, spanning 7,000 years and ranging from over 1,500 sites around the world. How much a tree grows each season can tell us a lot about temperatures and other climate related variables. You would expect the institution to be proud of this enormous data set they have so diligently created and expect it to want to share the data with anyone who is interested. Not so. Indeed, scholars have now been trying for two-and-a-half years to go through the UK's Freedom of Information Acts to force Queen's University to release the data, but to no avail.
Even NASA, which has been caught in really embarrassing mistakes not correctly identifying which years have had the warmest temperatures, refuses to give out its data so that others can figure out inconsistent temperature estimates in the past. In NASA’s case they have refused giving out this data for almost two years. Recently, Christopher Horner, a fellow with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, announced that he would give NASA until the end of the year to honour his Freedom of Information Request or he will be forced to bring a lawsuit.
One really has to wonder just what they are hiding!!
So James - seems you have the same tendency for porkies as all the other gloom and doom alarmists.
Latch on to any lie available as long as it supports the CO2 unproven theory.
And of course you were completely WRONG about your claims regarding Hansen. But then being a doom and gloom alarmist, the last thing you are capable of is an admission of error.
All alarmists and their "scientific data", however much fraudulently adjusted is always "right".
Oh and for the record - the challenge the goody-two-shoes EPA will face is not in the senate or congress as you claim in a rather baffling non sequitur, but in court.
I have no doubt they will lose their boots.
And James old chap - if you wish to debate interesting issues like CO2 and global warming - please try and refrain from personal insults.
If you are indeed a professional person it is hardly edifying and rather seriously back-foots you.
But having said that, you do have my sympathy - it must be quite frustrating to chronicle the collapse and demise of a "cash cow concept" like global warming and it's rich rewards of grants slipping down the tubes.
Nevertheless, I am sure that armed with their manipulative minds and sly abilities to "adjust" the facts - most of the "scientists" involved in the now discredited game of global warming will find gainful employment as used car salesmen or even happy-clapper preachers.
Sadly though the long scraggly beards, earrings and body odour will have to go.
I look forward to your next posting as I have some further quotations that some may find hilarious but which you may find quite annoying.

@ Graham von Maltitz - LOL, you made my day firstly just by reading your last name - Mal Titz indeed and secondly Mal you certainly are. The developed nations contribute FAR LESS to pollution and global warming than the developing nations do simply because they have laws in place against pollution, the re-forest areas where they remove forest growth rather than deforestation because there is electricity shortages,etc.

Get a clue, educate yourself and stop believing every bit of misinformation that is being carefully spoonfed to you!!

Dennis, I don't know how to make it any clearer than I already have. You said that Hansen was opposed to a carbon tax and to carbon trading (I presume you think that they're the same thing), where he has clearly stated that he supports a fee-and-dividend system. That is a carbon tax - once again, from an editorial Hansen wrote for the NY Times:

"There is a better alternative, one that would be more efficient and less costly than cap and trade: “fee and dividend.” Under this approach, a gradually rising carbon fee would be collected at the mine or port of entry for each fossil fuel (coal, oil and gas). The fee would be uniform, a certain number of dollars per ton of carbon dioxide in the fuel. The public would not directly pay any fee, but the price of goods would rise in proportion to how much carbon-emitting fuel is used in their production."

The rest of the article is below, take the time to read it and understand his position before assuming that he's saying what you want him to. If you don't understand the difference between carbon trading and a carbon tax, look it up:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/opinion/07hansen.html?_r=1

And Dennis, the EPA's decision to regulate CO2 came from an inquiry launched by the Supreme Court in 2007 to requestion the Bush administrations rejection of CO2 as a health threat. As soon as that decision was made the Competitive Enterprise Institute (yes, the same CEI involved with NASA) said they would be launching a federal lawsuit against the Obama administration to revoke the decision. The CEI has received over $2 million in funding from ExxonMobil and lobbied repeatedly against cigarette smoking regulations - there is so obviously an agenda there that it's difficult not to be extremely skeptical regarding anything those guys say.

I haven't heard about the Belfast situation, but when I googled it there were just a few references to denialist blogs and some extreme Christian websites. Can you link me to a newspaper article or something a bit more credible?

And I'm sure you've got megabytes of copypasta quotes that you can draw up, most taken completely out of the context they were meant in. Here's one for you courtesy of P Lawson - you said this in one of your comments above at 1:40

Dennis Hoines - "CO2 causes global warming"

You see what I did there?

Dennis, I find it quite telling that you do not reply to my statements about the research done by scientists like myself, independent of the UAE,

In fact I find it quite telling that you seem incapable of engaging with me, or anyone, on a scientific level. This can only mean that everything you believe comes from second hand sources, and, without the science, you are unable to look at any data for what it is, relying instead on other people's analysis and conclusion. It's shaky ground to be standing on.

Please respond to my previous post.

http://biggovernment.com/2009/12/11/un-security-stops-journalists-questions-about-climategate/#more-44722