Bad news: A deal has been struck at Durban.
The proposed treaty sounds so complicated and obtuse that I can’t see how it can be enforced. More importantly, I don’t see the U.S. Senate ever agreeing to it, even today’s Democratically controlled Congress.
I hope this is good news: The Durban climate negotiations are now in overtime, with several negotiators from some countries having already left the conference.
Some of the madness contained in the draft treaty being proposed in Durban, as reported by Lord Christopher Monckton:
- A new International Climate Court will have the power to compel Western nations to pay ever-larger sums to third-world countries in the name of making reparation for supposed “climate debt”. The Court will have no power over third-world countries. Here and throughout the draft, the West is the sole target. “The process” is now irredeemably anti-Western.
- “Rights of Mother Earth”: The draft, which seems to have been written by feeble-minded green activists and environmental extremists, talks of “The recognition and defence of the rights of Mother Earth to ensure harmony between humanity and nature”. Also, “there will be no commodification [whatever that may be: it is not in the dictionary and does not deserve to be] of the functions of nature, therefore no carbon market will be developed with that purpose”.
- War and the maintenance of defence forces and equipment are to cease – just like that – because they contribute to climate change. There are other reasons why war ought to cease, but the draft does not mention them.
There’s more stupidity detailed by Monckton at the link.
All in all, this treaty draft once again reveals these activists for what they are: power-hungry socialists whose real goal isn’t to save the Earth but to take from some to enrich themselves and others. I pray the Obama administration and Congress refuse to go along.
The work of a modern global warming climate scientist:
An update on the climate treaty talks in Durban.
I gather from this article that the talks appear to be going nowhere. (The reporter desperately wants a deal, and you need to read between the lines to sense how unlikely the deal is.) Not only is the U.S. reluctant to sign anything, so is India, China, and Brazil. Furthermore, even if the Obama administration agreed to something, it is highly unlikely any treaty could get through the Senate.
Also, it appears that the $100 billion Green Climate Fund is is in trouble as well.
All good news, as far as I am concerned. None of these deals have anything to do with climate or science. Instead, they are designed to redistribute power and wealth, by fiat, from one set of countries to another.
The final results for the 2011 hurricane season show that the number of Atlantic hurricanes this year was completely average, not too many or too few, but well below what was predicted. See the graph at the bottom of the page.
Speaking of press release journalism, they just ended a press conference at the American Geophysical Union (AGU) fall meeting led by James Hansen, head of the NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies in New York. Hansen is a devoted global warming scientist, most well known to the public from his testimony to Congress in 1988 outlining the serious threat the world faces from global warming and carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere.
I had very much wanted to ask Hansen (as well as the rest of the panel) this somewhat challenging question:
» Read more
The pathetic state of science journalism.
Many survive as a science journalist just by paying attention to press releases and reproducing them, as long as others do the same. A recent BBC analysis of its science coverage in its own news reports revealed that 75% came from press releases, and only a tiny fraction contained views not expressed in those press releases.
This lip service is not good enough, and editors should wise up that science journalism has lost its edge and demand reform. It has also become uncritical and therefore not journalism. Too many who profess to practice journalism are the product of fashionable science communication courses that have sprung up in the past fifteen years. It’s my view that this has resulted in many journalists being supporters of, and not reporters of, science. There is a big difference.
I couldn’t agree more. I sometimes think my rants against “press release journalism” sound like a broken record. I am glad I am not the only one ranting.
A collection of pertinent quotes from Climategate 2.
I come to two conclusions as I read these and earlier emails.
Both of these facts are important to recognize in order to decide what sources of information are reliable in studying this issue. And obviously, this means that almost any reports or press announcements coming out of Durbin this week are untrustworthy.
Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere reached a new high in 2010.
And yet, the rise in the world’s climate has stalled since around 2000. This suggests to me, as does a lot of other research, that the Earth’s climate is far more complex than claimed by many scientists, and that there are some factors we do not yet understand contributing to the ebb and flow of the planet’s global temperature.
Let me add one more point: this lack of understanding about climate change also suggests it is a mistake for our government to take drastic action against global warming at this time. As George Will has noted, “The law is a blunt instrument.” It often does a poor job of dealing with these kinds of issues, especially in cases where our knowledge is flawed or incomplete.
When I appear on radio and am talking about climate change, I often get the same questions over and over.
The truth is that, right now, no one can really answer any of these questions with any certainty. While a large majority of climate scientists might be convinced the Earth is warming and that human activity is causing this warming, the public has great doubts about these claims, partly because of the untrustworthy behavior of many of these climate scientists and partly because the science itself is often confusing.
We simply don’t yet have enough data. Worse, much of the data we do have is tainted, unreliable because of the misconduct and political activism of the very climate scientists who are trying to prove the case for man-made global warming.
Two new papers, published today in Geophysical Research Letters, add some interesting but small data points to this whole subject.
» Read more
The headline (from Nature) proves how little the Durban climate conference has to do with science: Bridging the gap: Political science in Durban.
This conference, as well as all past UN climate conferences, has always been about politics and money, not science. And the last line of the article even emphasizes the point:
More on all of that next week as negotiators work to avert disaster and identify a politically palatable path forward — and some money to make it all happen. [emphasis mine]
