Free Markets, Free People


India: We’re Not Hurting Our Economy For “Climate Change”

The Copenhagen summit is in December and yesterday UN climate chief Yvo de Boer said he didn’t expect a binding agreement to come out of the meeting, dashing the hopes of environmental extremists that the nations of the world would agree to binding reductions of so-called greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Today India, apparently speaking for, or speaking with the approval of, the world’s developing nations (of which China considers itself one):

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said Thursday that the world’s poor nations will not sacrifice their development in negotiations for a new climate change deal.

The issue of how to share the burden of fighting global warming has divided the developing and industrialized worlds as they prepare to negotiate a replacement to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol at a December summit in Copenhagen.

“Developing countries cannot and will not compromise on development,” Singh told an international conference on technology and climate change.

Naturally he threw a little diplospeak out there to soften the refusal to play the game:

However, even poorer countries need to “do our bit to keep our emissions footprint within levels that are sustainable and equitable,” he said.

Riiiight. And that means they’ll decide what constitutes “sustainable and equitable” as it applies to their economy, not the targets some world body wants to put on them. Both India and China, two of the largest emitters of GHGs in the world have repeatedly said no to binding reductions and international monitoring. But they’re up for a little friendly looting:

Developing countries want financial aid for their climate change efforts, and Singh said wealthy nations have an obligation to ensure they get access to new, clean technology that will cut emissions and increase energy efficiency.

“We need technology solutions that are appropriate, affordable and effective,” he said.

I certainly don’t blame them a bit for refusing to hurt themselves economically in the name of specious “science” (thankfully, Americans are beginning to figure out the scam). And the fact they won’t do so should confirm to even the most fanatic global warmist that attempts to cut GHGs will indeed cause major economic distress. Additionally, as pointed out here and elsewhere, cap-and-trade attempts in Europe and elsewhere have been a disaster with no net reduction in such emissions observed.

I look for Copenhagen to be a bust and am quite happy about that, frankly. The US will show up empty handed with nothing but promises (Waxman-Markey thankfully not having passed yet), the UN will play the international “Chicken Little”, 3rd world “developing” countries will have their hands out as usual and industrialized nations won’t be able to agree on much of anything.

Perfect.

~McQ

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • email
  • Print
  • Google Bookmarks

40 Responses to India: We’re Not Hurting Our Economy For “Climate Change”

  • “The US will show up empty handed with nothing but promises (Waxman-Markey thankfully not having passed yet), the UN will play the international “Chicken Little”, 3rd world “developing” countries will have their hands out as usual and industrialized nations won’t be able to agree on much of anything.”

    But all the assembled will agree on one thing; a followup meeting is needed in 2 years time in some other exotic location. Honolulu, Mombassa (Kenya) or Portillo (top-rated ski resort in Chile) come to mind as possible venues…

  • McQI look for Copenhagen to be a bust and am quite happy about that, frankly. The US will show up empty handed with nothing but promises (Waxman-Markey thankfully not having passed yet), the UN will play the international “Chicken Little”, 3rd world “developing” countries will have their hands out as usual and industrialized nations won’t be able to agree on much of anything.

    While I think it likely that there will be no international agreement to screw over the industrialized countries (including us), we’re far from safe from the effects of this junk science. TAO and the loonies he’s put in charge of the EPA, DOE, and other federal agencies, in conjunction with the morons in Congress who’ve bought into “global warming”, are already working to institute various rules and regulations that will do the work of Kyoto / Copenhagen without the necessity of an international agreement. When the US Supreme Court agrees that C02 is a “pollutant”, we’re pretty much well f*cked and far from home.

    The lunatics are running the asylum.

  • There was a court ruling that residents of New Orleans can sue because GHGs had increased the power of storms like Katrina.

    If this goes to trial (I’m not sure who will actually finally get sued), the power companies who in the ruling will finally turn on the juice to show this junk science for what it is, instead of looking for “cap-n-trade” handouts. Meanwhile, the EPA couldn’t find it’s ass if it was being warmed by GHGs.

  • Specious science McQ?

    The most respected scientific bodies have stated unequivocally that global warming is occurring, and people are causing it by burning fossil fuels (like coal, oil and natural gas) and cutting down forests. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, which in 2005 the White House called “the gold standard of objective scientific assessment,” issued a joint statement with 10 other National Academies of Science saying “the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions.” (Joint Statement of Science Academies: Global Response to Climate Change [PDF], 2005)

    The unknown is how fast this is occurring.

    Between 1961 and 1997, the world’s glaciers lost 890 cubic miles of ice. The consensus among scientists is that rising air temperatures are the most important factor behind the retreat of glaciers on a global scale over long time periods. Some glaciers in western Norway, Iceland and New Zealand have been expanding during the past few decades. That expansion is a result of regional increases in storm frequency and snowfall rather than colder temperatures — not at all incompatible with a global warming trend. (same sourcc as above)

    No disagreement about outstretched hands clamoring for money, Disagreement is about specious “science” if in fact yours (and others) contention is that global warming is a myth.

    • Do you deny that a ever-growing cadre of climate scientists is pushing the skeptical view?

      Do you deny that the “Hockey Stick” was a fabrication based on faulty science and that most of the data supposedly supporting AGW was kept hidden from peer review until just recently?

      Do you deny that no climate model has predicted what the climate is currently doing, nor has one been constructed that accurately even predicts what’s happened in the past?

      Do you deny that sea ice has increased over the past decade is approximately where it was in the 70′s?

      Do you deny that the past decade has gotten colder?

      Do you deny that the most significant factor in the warmth of our planet (the Sun) has phased into a sunspot minimum which very closely correlates to colder weather on Earth?

      Do you deny that “scientific consensus” was what drove Lysenkoism?

      So, whose the denialist here?

      • Michael,

        It was the Briffa “hockystick” that was shown to be based upon cherrypicked data. Briffa independently replicated the results of the origional Mann “hockystick”, which has yet to be disproven. However, now Mann’s results stand alone.

        I do not believe Mann’s raw data has been released for review, and his graph has serious issues (like indicating known warm periods were cold periods). However, strickly speaking, Mann’s “hockystick” in not proven to be false. Yet.

        By the way, the IPCC, some of the “respected scientists” Kevin is no doubt thinking about, used the Briffa data in their report. Snort.

    • Just a seemingly random question, and not that it proves anything really, but about how old are you Kevin? You don’t have to be exact, a rounded count of decades will suffice.
      Just curious.

      • We’ve been through this looker – he’s a friend of mine from college days.

        • Ah, older than me by…half a decade or so.

          dammit, then he lived through the great “Glacier” terror (I still think Paul Newman should have been ashamed for staring in this stupid movie,
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quintet_(film))

          And the great Mad Max post oil apocalypse films.

          I cite these as symptoms of social thinking at the time, evidence of…art reflecting “scientific thought” (sorta like the latest global warming turkey movies)

          And yet he still believes?
          Oh well.

    • There was global cooling from the ’40s until the ’70s, global warming from the ’70s to the late ’90s, and cooling since then, based upon actual temperture readings. 

      If you want a much larger time span to look at, you have to resort to things like tree ring data, and the Mann “hockystick” and the Briffa “hockystick” that collaborrated Mann’s work.

      Briffa’s hockystick data, after much effort, was obtained by sceptics, who showed that his “global warming” over the last few hundred years was based upon ten data points cherrypicked from a larger data set; when all the data is put in the graph, the “warming” goes away . . . maybe Briffa can explain this, but to my knowledge he has not.

      So we are left with Mann’s origional “stick”, which has issues (like showing know warm periods as cold periods, and I don’t believe its raw data has been independently reviewed.  

      You can then resort to the computer models, which have yet to predict future weather (for example, the current cold spell).

  • Between 1961 and 1997

    And as a by the way, in 1973, while the glaciers between 1961 and 1973 were clearly, according to numbers you’re citing, losing mass, they (climate experts & scientists) were predicting a resurgent ice age by 2000 (oh, along with a farily complete depletion of the world’s petroleum supply…)

    Just interesting, and seemingly random, bit(s) of information.

  • Kevin: Cutting down forests would actually produce global cooling. You know, forests help produce that famous ‘greenhouse effect’ that was supposed to have wiped out the planet a few years ago.

    The entire AGW thingamajig is a scam, a giant money making scheme to defraud citizens while making govt. more powerful. NOTHING MORE.

    Most scientists don’t believe in AGW, though the media would have you believe otherwise.

  • Glaciers have been retreating for most of the past 10,000 years and the ocean levels have been rising most of that time too. We are in what is called an inter-glacial period of a continuing ice age. Where I am sitting in upstate New York was earlier in this ice age under two miles of ice.

    But the glaciers have also advanced in that time. After receding in Greenland (hence the name) during the Medieval warm period to the point where it was extensively settled, the ice advanced again and made Greenland all but uninhabitable.

    The global warming crusade has as its main claim that CO2 correlates closely with warming, in fact produces warming. This isn’t even borne out by 20th Century data prior to the last decade, and certainly not borne out by the last decade, which shows no temperature increase. The models based on the CO2 correlation, tweaked this way and that to predict all sorts of outcomes, cannot in fact be tweaked to predict what has already happened! The models are baloney and no one is even defending them any longer. Now the Warmists have been pushed back to the point where they are forced to defend the accuracy of the very data that they used to proclaim even the modest warming of 0.7 degress F that they thought they had over the past century.

    The validity of the data itself is crumbling.

    It’s been a hoax from the beginning. The best that could be said about it is that it was a work of self-delusion. Science is not a consensus arrived at by important organizations, no, not even after they have been politicized.

    • <b>Martin McPhillips</b> – <i>The models are baloney and no one is even defending them any longer.</i>

      Well, yes and no.  The problem is that many people have a persistent, hazy belief in their validity.  It’s part ‘n’ parcel to the persistent, hazy belief that “scientists” “overwhelmingly” support the “consensus” about global warming.  Hence, references to global warming as some sort of science permeate our media: it shows up in popular TV shows, the news, commercials, etc.

      The gorebots take advantage of widespread ignorance, the knee-jerk belief in the word of “scientists”, the complexity of the issue, and the linkage between “global warming” and plain ol’ pollution (“don’t you want clean air and clean water?”).  They’ve also got quite a propaganda machine at their disposal; not only is global warming orthodoxy constantly shoved down our throats, competing opinions are stifled, derided, or outright ignored.

      We’re already paying a price for the gullibility of people around the world.  I think we ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

  • “Do you deny that a ever-growing cadre of climate scientists is pushing the skeptical view?”

    Michael, I don’t know where you are getting your information. My source of information is listed in my post. You refer to an ever growing cadre of climate scientists, what cadre, where?

    You make many assertions in your post. Where are your sources?

    I really can’t speak to what drove Trofim Lysenko and frankly am surprised that you can since he died in the 70′s.

  • It was a slow day McQ, i wanted to liven it up, and it worked. I think there were two posts till I placed mine.

  • hey Michael, I started reading McQ’s blog about three days ago, sorry I haven’t had the freakin time to go back and read every post written about “these things” here at Q & O since inception. Also apologize for not being an expert on Lysenkoism, I’ve tried to have some sort of life outside this blog and devoting my life to the origins of Lysenkoism and its relationship to global warming has not recently been a priority. Bet you have used google-fu as well, do you deny that?

    • Sorry, I figured since you were commenting and throwing facts around that you were somewhat acquainted with the subject. My bad.

      As for Lysenkoism, it’s just a little strange that you know who the man is, and when he died, but know nothing about the actual Soviet policy. Again, my bad.

  • No chance now to read McQ.

    I am going to enroll today at the University of Lysenkoism.

    Michael, all in good fun, nothing personal

  • Geez where in the hell is my hero Ott Scerb.

    • Sorry, but I’m busy grading mid-terms (main essay question: “Please describe all the things you hated about George Bush and how wonderful Barack Obama makes you feel about them”).

      Plus I have work to do on my book “Why is War Easy: Because Dense Righties Like It” which is not either being done for a vanity press that suckers gullible social science professors, so stop saying that.

  • Kevin, you keep things interesting!!!!
    Bo

  • “Are you quoting the same White House that was accused of cherry picking scientific data for political purposes? You seem all too willing to believe they did so about Iraq, but apparently their word on “the gold standard of science” is just irrefutable.”

    You said they were truthful and the data could be trusted, so I believed you (and the others)!!

    • I said no such thing – I said they used the same data as the administration before them and every allied intelligence service on the planet. The data was wrong. And that’s what I’m saying about the so-called “science” for AGW. Seems a consistent position to me.

  • “It was a slow day McQ, i wanted to liven it up,…”

    AKA trolling.

  • timactual,

    Got the “e” out, sorry about that.

    “AKA trolling,…”

    No, not true, just a comment.

    • from Wikipedia:

      “In internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting on-topic discussion.”

      Seems like a fit to me.

      • Yeah … well trust me, it doesn’t – “primary intent” is not valid with this one. More of a learning curve problem on the dynamics of the comment section on this blog and its denizens.

      • hvélsvelg himins is my troll name
        you know that McQ
        Quite a learning curve and a very interesting “rabble” of denizens.