Free Markets, Free People


An Inconvenient Mess

Copenhagen has settled into what can only be characterized as an embarrassment for those who had hoped to see a historic treaty limiting greenhouse gases signed.

World leaders — with Gordon Brown arriving tonight in the vanguard — are facing the humiliating prospect of having little of substance to sign on Friday, when they are supposed to be clinching an historic deal.

Yesterday, a bloc of third world nations walked out of the negotiations in a squabble about the lack of legally binding emissions targets for the richer countries. And, of course, the squabble about how much of the wealth to transfer to the developing countries continues to be a contentious subject.

Last night key elements of the proposed deal were unravelling. British officials said they were no longer confident that it would contain specific commitments from individual countries on payments to a global fund to help poor nations to adapt to climate change while the draft text on protecting rainforests has also been weakened.

Even the long-term target of ending net deforestation by 2030 has been placed in square brackets, meaning that the date could be deferred. An international monitoring system to identify illegal logging is now described in the text as optional, where before it was compulsory. Negotiators are also unable to agree on a date for a global peak in greenhouse emissions.

Meanwhile, Al Gore managed to embarrass himself in Copenhagen as well:

Mr Gore, speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, stated the latest research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years.

In his speech, Mr Gore told the conference: “These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.”

However, the climatologist whose work Mr Gore was relying upon dropped the former Vice-President in the water with an icy blast.

“It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at,” Dr Maslowski said. “I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”

Mr Gore’s office later admitted that the 75 per cent figure was one used by Dr Maslowksi as a “ballpark figure” several years ago in a conversation with Mr Gore.

Or, in common parlance, what Mr. Gore used was a SWAG (a “Scientific” Wild-Assed Guess). In fact, given the CRU scandal, much of AGW “science” is now considered a SWAG.

The good news is Copenhagen is shaping up to be a “disaster.” I put disaster is scare quotes because for those of us who’ve fought this nonsense for so long, “disaster” is a good thing.

Instead of the American public being thrown under the bus, it looks like the wheels are coming off the bus. You have to wonder what will meet Obama when he shows up on the 18th.

~McQ

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

19 Responses to An Inconvenient Mess

  • There’s always the EPA.  Unfortunately.

    • The litigation begins …

      DOE-SR [Savannah River] has received a “Litigation Hold Notice” from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) General Council and the DOE Office of Inspector General regarding the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England.

      • I missed this, Take a look at <a href=”http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1065&filename=1256765544.txt”>email 1256765544.txt</a>
        <blockquote>
        > Imagine if there were no reliable
        >records of global surface temperature. Raucous
        >policy debates such as cap-and-trade would have
        >no scientific basis, Al Gore would at this point
        >be little more than a historical footnote, and
        >President Obama would not be spending this U.N.
        >session talking up a (likely unattainable)
        >international climate deal in Copenhagen in
        >December. Steel yourself for the new reality,
        >because the data needed to verify the
        >gloom-and-doom warming forecasts have disappeared.
        >
        > Or so it seems. Apparently, they were
        >either lost or purged from some discarded
        >computer. Only a very few people know what really
        >happened, and they aren’t talking much. And what
        >little they are saying makes no sense.
        > In the early 1980s, with funding from
        >the U.S. Department of Energy, scientists at the
        >United Kingdom’s University of East Anglia
        >established the Climate Research Unit (CRU) to
        >produce the world’s first comprehensive history
        >of surface temperature. It’s known in the trade
        >as the “Jones and Wigley” record for its authors,
        >Phil Jones and Tom Wigley, and it served as the
        >primary reference standard for the U.N.
        >Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
        >until 2007. It was this record that prompted the
        >IPCC to claim a “discernible human influence on global climate.”

        > All of this is much more than an
        >academic spat. It now appears likely that the
        >U.S. Senate will drop cap-and-trade climate
        >legislation from its docket this fall – whereupon
        >the Obama Environmental Protection Agency is
        >going to step in and issue regulations on
        >carbon-dioxide emissions. Unlike a law, which
        >can’t be challenged on a scientific basis, a
        >regulation can. If there are no data, there’s no
        >science. U.S. taxpayers deserve to know the
        >answer to the question posed above. (Patrick J.
        >Michaels is a senior fellow in environmental
        >studies at the Cato Institute and author of
        >Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don’t Want You to Know.) “</blockquote>

  • Whether the conference turned out to be a disaster or not, the consequences of having that much political muscle trying to force this on the developed world and particularly on the U.S. will repercuss down through the years and decades. They will not give up, and the European Union of Soviet Socialist Republics could collapse and the flag raised out of the rubble, aside from the Crescent, will be that of Warming.

  • I’m still betting Obama doesn’t go  … probably the need to work on ObamaCare or some such nonsense

  • I wonder how much of this would have happened anyway?  The Kyoto accord had little to no effect on efforts at curbing CO2 emissions among the nations that signed it, and as far as I know they are not facing any sanctions for it.  These summits are a lot like the UN, they produce lots of paper and lots of pompous pronouncements, but everyone knows that there is no way to enforce any of it.  In most cases there doesn’t even seem to be a clear understanding of how to even achieve the stated goals.

    For all of the alarmist rhetoric and warnings of dire catastrophe, there is little actual substance to any of it.  It’s just a glorified dog-and-pony show, and as the recent EPA ruling indicates, we don’t need worthless climate-change agreements.  We’re capable of screwing up our economy in the name of the environment just fine by ourselves.

    • And under the leadership of Geroge W. Bush, the US had some the the lowest increases in carbon emmssions of all the signatories of Kyoto, and we didn’t even ratify it.

  • Like the rest of The Clown’s™ agenda, his Crap and Trade and his Copenhagen bullcrappola are DEAD, DEAD, DEAD. Only The Clown™ is too stupid to realize it. They had some Demmie schmuck named Todd Webster on MSDNC yesterday, and he had the hilarity to say that he is “confident” that the Demmies are doing the right thing, and that they have support in the country for everything from Crap and Trade to death care, and that – wait for it – the Demmies will PICK UP SEATS in the midterms in November. Yep, Mr. Webster, and denial is not a river in Egypt. Karen Hanratty, the Republican put up against him, laughed in his face and told him that he was out of touch with reality. As are most Demmies and most liberals.

  • Hmmm, pass Cap n’ Trade or just have the EPA do it via edict AND hand the Chinese money to fund their further industrial expansion….seriously…can it get any dumber?
    Oh, I guess the good news is that if China can create an industrial economy from a peasant base, we could too when we will need to in 2020. Just hope ex-office workers are willing to put in the long shifts at the machines like peasants are…

    • In my inconvenient mess of a long post above, it seems that the DOE is now trying to find the basis of the EPA’s finding since the CRU folks threw it out.  Without the basis, the EPA has nothing but their collective d…s in their hands.

      • And you expect this will stop the EPA from enforcing their edicts in what way?  These guys have long since demonstrated that, like the IRS they are above the due process requirements of the law or even above the law itself.

        • But the EPA Administrator said the emails change nothing.  Let’s see her make that claim under oath in front of a Congressional committee.

          • Well, that rather depends on who’s controlling the questioning, doesn’t it?  If its Babsy or Jean-Francois, Brownie will sail through without much trouble.  However, if Inhofe is running the show, it could be a trip to the woodshed for the history books.

    • It will be a long time before anyone allows us to become a net exporter again.  So I wouldn’t look for a copy of China’s ascendancy.

    • So we introduce some to the re-education bullet, an unfortunate necessity you know.  The rest will soon understand the way of things here in the new Amerika our socialist masters have granted us.

  • World leaders — with Gordon Brown arriving tonight in the vanguard — are facing the humiliating prospect of having little of substance to sign on Friday, when they are supposed to be clinching an historic deal.

    The world leaders can sign a deal to reduce CO2 emissions by 0.000001% by 2109 and MiniTru will hail it as a historic moment.  MiniTru is as invested in “global warming” as Algore, Imeme, James Hansen, the IPCC, the UN, the CRU, and all the other clowns and frauds who’ve been pushing this junk for years.  They won’t want to admit that “Hopenhagen” was actually “Flopenhagen”.

    To my mind, the fact that such a weak “agreement” is the best the can be reached is de facto evidence that there was nothing to worry about in the first place.  Let’s face it: if you were absolutely, positively, 100% certain that something bad WILL happen if you don’t take  the sort of immediate action that Algore and his fellow alarmists have been calling for since the early ’90s, then you’d do it and hang the costs.  But, if you are pretty sure that NOTHING bad will happen no matter what you do and that the whole exercize is about nothing other than increasing bureaucratic power and shuffling money around to favorite nations and people, then you can quibble about costs and put off any significant action indefinitely.

    I hope that the apparent failure of Copenhagen means that we’ve dodged a bullet, but I’m not going to rest easy until the very name “Al Gore” becomes a synonym for scientific fraud as “Ponzi” is for financial fraud, or “Munchausen” is for fantastic lies.

  • “Had Copenhagen” is a perfect anagram of “hope and change.”  Coincidence? I think not. ;-)

  • We can only hope for more such “embarassments” and “disasters”.