Copenhagen Treaty

[melon....]

Don't let the facts sway you Melon, stick to your conspiracy theories!

http://www.theage.com.au/national/au...1209-kja0.html

Australia has recorded its hottest six months ever, and is well on track to have the second hottest year since records began, the Bureau of Meteorology says.

The World Meteorological Organisation's annual climate statement released today at Copenhagen found temperatures in 2009 reached 0.44C above the 1961-1990 annual average.

"The decade 2000-2009 is very likely to be the warmest on record," WMO secretary general Michel Jarraud told reporters at the Copenhagen climate summit late on Tuesday, Australian time.
__________________________________________________ ____________

Chook.

Chook......where's teh proof that man is causing the "rise in temperatures"? Mate read on....your a good mate, but theyve sucked you way way in.

Clive Spash resigns from CSIRO after climate report 'censorship'

Full story: www.news.com.au
SCIENTIST Clive Spash has resigned from the CSIRO and called for a Senate inquiry into the science body following the censorship of his report into emissions trading. Last month, Dr Spash accused the organisation of gagging him and his report - The Brave New World of Carbon Trading - and restricting its publication. The report is critical of cap and trade schemes, like the one the federal government is seeking to introduce, as well as big compensation to polluters. Dr Spash advocates a direct tax on carbon. The CSIRO said the report was in breach of its publication guidelines, which restrict scientists from speaking out on public policy. But it provoked accusations the CSIRO was censoring research harmful to the Government.

http://www.topix.com/news/global-war...ort-censorship

[Guest]

Chook......where's teh proof that man is causing the "rise in temperatures"? Mate read on....your a good mate, but theyve sucked you way way in.

Clive Spash resigns from CSIRO after climate report 'censorship'

Full story: www.news.com.au
SCIENTIST Clive Spash has resigned from the CSIRO and called for a Senate inquiry into the science body following the censorship of his report into emissions trading. Last month, Dr Spash accused the organisation of gagging him and his report - The Brave New World of Carbon Trading - and restricting its publication. The report is critical of cap and trade schemes, like the one the federal government is seeking to introduce, as well as big compensation to polluters. Dr Spash advocates a direct tax on carbon. The CSIRO said the report was in breach of its publication guidelines, which restrict scientists from speaking out on public policy. But it provoked accusations the CSIRO was censoring research harmful to the Government.

http://www.topix.com/news/global-war...ort-censorship

Sorry mate, but the more I read, the more I am convinced you don't know what you are talking about.

Spash is advocating a direct tax on carbon. All he is critical off is the cap and trade scheme proposed by the Rudd government, and he is critical only beacuse if offers compensation to major polluters. That compensation is to alleviate the costs associated so that those costs is not passed onto consumers...that would be you and me. What Spash wants would pass 100% of his direct carbon trax onto us. Is that what you want?

Chook.

[Guest]

I wouldn't believe a word they say as they all speak BS

Why do I get a visual of you with your fingers in your ears sceaming "LALALALALALALALALA"?

Chook.

[melon....]

And then there's more.....



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/societ...1209-kk69.html

Climate emails: a dirty war swirls around 'swindle'
BEN CUBBY
December 10, 2009 Comments 4
This week I received an unsigned letter containing a black and white photograph of a figure hanging from a lamp post. On the back was written the word "Climategate".

The letter is one of many being sent to scientists, politicians and journalists as part of an unprecedented information war being waged around the science of climate change. Thankfully most are much more urbane.

''Climategate'' refers to the scandal in which a series of emails were stolen from the University of East Anglia and published as supposed proof that the science underpinning climate change action is based on fraud. A minority of people still believe the email affair is being hushed up by newspapers.

This conspiracy theory was dismissed with the contempt it merits by Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, at the Copenhagen summit this week.

But the accusations of fraud will persist because the so-called ''debate'' on climate change has veered into the realms of fantasy. The fog on the public relations battlefield has obscured the real question: how to cut greenhouse gas emissions in a fast but sensible way.

The sum total of both the doom-laden warnings and the ever more hysterical claims from climate sceptics of a global conspiracy is an impenetrable wall of noise.

This is a pity, because the case for climate change action doesn't need spin. It doesn't need reference to ''alarmists'' or ''deniers''. Participants in the so-called debate around climate change need to grow up.

The wall of noise plays into the hands of the vested interests who want to see nothing done. It is used to frighten people whose jobs depend on digging coal or smelting steel.

It has helped deliver a political landscape in Australia, unique in the developed world, where the leader of a major party can now base its climate change policy on the belief that the world seems to be getting cooler.

This, in turn, has taken the pressure off the Government's own questionable climate change policy.

Climate science may be complicated, but it's not rocket science. It is in the public domain, open to informed scrutiny, and it has been there for decades. The self-styled climate sceptics movement - not a term climate scientists approve of - has had ample opportunity to debunk arguments which the world can no longer ignore.

We know that carbon dioxide, some other gases and water vapour trap heat from the sun in the atmosphere. We know this because it can be measured, and replicated in lab experiments. We know that the warming trends we have detected are closely correlated with the rising CO2 content. The computer models used to predict future climate change scenarios take these simple concepts and some other variables, such as solar activity, into account. The reason we know that these models work is that we can model past climate scenarios using the same criteria and match the results up against the existing temperature records. If your model starts with the conditions we know to have been present in the year 1900, and produces the conditions we know to have existed through the 20th century, it is a fair bet it works.

Even if climate models are discounted as evidence, direct observation of the natural world adds to an already compelling case.

We know that the ocean is struggling to absorb CO2 content because we can measure it, and measure its effects on marine life. We can measure the extent of decline in Arctic and Antarctic ice, rising sea levels and melting glaciers. We can measure changes in forests and deserts. We can measure these results against the level of warming that the CO2 content of the atmosphere leads us to expect, and they match.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded it is 90 per cent certain that the current cycle of climate change is being driven by human activity. It's fifth assessment report, discussed overnight in Copenhagen, will further bolster the evidence. Few scientific theories approach this level of certainty.

Opposing the mainstream scientific view means advancing the idea that there is a mysterious X-factor that mimics the warming effect we would expect to see from our greenhouse gas emissions. It is still a slim possibility, but not one delegates at Copenhagen are taking seriously. It would be a happy day if they are proved wrong, but no one would be advised to hold their breath for that.

Ben Cubby is the Herald's environment reporter.

[elo]

Climate talks teeter as split emerges

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...10/2767124.htm

A major split has emerged between developing countries at the United Nations climate conference in Copenhagen over the best way to help the most vulnerable countries.

The small island states and poor African nations - the world's most vulnerable to the worst effects of climate change - want any deal to contain stricter conditions than those agreed on in Kyoto in 1997.

The group includes the Cook Islands, Barbados and Fiji as well as the poor African nations of Sierra Leone and Senegal.

But their proposal for a tough new treaty is being resisted by China and India, whose leaders fear aggressive action could jeopardise economic growth.

China also used the session at Copenhagen to call for industrialised nations to make bigger cuts in emissions than their developing country counterparts.

Climate Change Minister Penny Wong, who is attending the conference, admites the talks are off to a "difficult start".

"In many ways that's unsurprising because it's a difficult negotiation," she said.

"I do have to say that some of the language that has been reported has been disappointing. Some of it has been unhelpful.

"If we're going to make this work we have to move away from blame shifting and finger pointing."


Police raids

Meanwhile, Danish police raided an apartment complex housing a group of climate campaigners detained 200 activists.

About 200 police carried out the raid in the centre of Copenhagen in the early hours of the morning.

Activists were locked in the building for two hours while officers searched the premises and seized items they claimed could be used for acts of civil disobedience.

Campaigners say the police confiscated a power drill, an angle grinder, some pieces of timber, paint bombs and 193 riot shields.

The accommodation centre is one of a handful provided by the Danish Government for the protesters.

About 30,000 or 40,000 protesters are expected to arrive in the capital over the next week.

Police fear an international extremist group may also be on its way to Copenhagen to commit acts of violence.

--------------------------

Stick it to the frauds!

[Guest]

And then there's more.....Ben Cubby is the Herald's environment reporter.

The only thing this is "more" off is your desparation to grab any headline that you think backs up your claim of a global conspiracy theory cover up!

If you read the article, you would see that he is an advocate for AGW not against it.

Chook.

[Guest]

Bump.....(it was one off the top)

[melon....]

The only thing this is "more" off is your desparation to grab any headline that you think backs up your claim of a global conspiracy theory cover up!

If you read the article, you would see that he is an advocate for AGW not against it.

Chook.

It doesnt matter what he advocates. What matters is teh dude that wrote a report questioning teh effectiveness of proposed Carbon Trading models, was censored and resigned as a result. You dont find teh censorship even remotely perplexing? Doesnt it add to the seeds of doubt that Climategate emails planted?

I dont give a shit if ****ing Dr David Suzuki wrote the article. Its the story that Im interested in. Ive never known anyone to blindly follow such a bullshit artists lead like you do for Kev. Even I challenged and questioned Howards policies. You just fall into line...what teh **** have they put in that Cotter River water?

[Guest]

It doesnt matter what he advocates. What matters is teh dude that wrote a report questioning teh effectiveness of proposed Carbon Trading models, was censored and resigned as a result. You dont find teh censorship even remotely perplexing? Doesnt it add to the seeds of doubt that Climategate emails planted?

I dont give a shit if ****ing Dr David Suzuki wrote the article. Its the story that Im interested in. Ive never known anyone to blindly follow such a bullshit artists lead like you do for Kev. Even I challenged and questioned Howards policies. You just fall into line...what teh **** have they put in that Cotter River water?

Koolaid

[Guest]

Chook you will not listen to Melon,myself or others

Maybe you will listen to a former Minister from the Keating government Gary Johns


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1225808817696

Thank heavens cap and trade is dead

Gary Johns From: The Australian December 10, 2009 12:00AM

KEVIN Rudd never actually fought the 2007 election on an emissions trading scheme. After all, John Howard offered the same.
There was a consensus on an ETS; Rudd lassoed votes by offering to sign the Kyoto Protocol, just as it was coming to an end. It was a cheap gesture. Now comes the hard part, convincing the electorate that what once seemed like a good idea remains so despite the fact it will not achieve its objective, or at least will be costly and ineffectual in solving climate change, and that it will be positively harmful in distracting from other big world issues such as poverty. Remember the promises made to make world poverty history? What happened to that money?

In all this, the Prime Minister has been operating as an international bureaucrat. His involvement in multilateral matters is immense and mostly futile. The real action takes place in country to country deals, in gas, uranium, climate adaptation and technical co-operation. On these matters he has been largely absent. Labor opted out of the climate change debate years ago by following the consensus between climate change scientists and European economics. There was no political antenna telling them that this stuff really hurts. The consequence is that there is no plan B.


How did this happen? Climate change advocates have become the bullies of policy-making. They have pushed aside a score of important international issues. They are sucking up money and policy oxygen. They claim their demands supersede poverty, clean water, Third World health, international free trade, and that they will protect the poor from catastrophe.

But climate change measures to save the world will not solve world poverty, provide clean water or solve health problems. Indeed, developing a trade in a gas that is essential for life, difficult to measure and therefore easy to cheat to avoid complying with an international agreement will interfere with free trade.

Successive Australian governments fell for this bullying. Fortunately, now the faux consensus between the main parties on climate change response has collapsed, there is no chance the ETS will pass. More importantly, Rudd will not want to take a new version to an election for fear it will be treated like all referendums where there is disagreement among the main parties. They fail.

The prospects for an ETS do not improve with the likely outcomes from Copenhagen. Three things will happen at Copenhagen. There will be no agreement that the world can move to a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas mitigation. Politicians in developing countries, China and India in particular, will announce national targets for carbon intensity (the amount of carbon dioxide emitted for each unit of gross domestic product) but not lower carbon output. Politicians in poor countries will have their hands out for money to help them develop or adapt, which will look pretty much like the old foreign aid game. The agreement will begin to talk about adaptation because scientists are telling the community it is already too late to stop climate change.

Sooner or later we will have to accept that reducing carbon dioxide emissions is not like a crash diet, there is no lap-band surgery. And since modern societies cannot exist without cheap, non-renewable fuel, realistic substitutes such as nuclear energy are fast coming online everywhere except in places such as Australia, where coal and gas are cheap.

The implications for Australia are that the government's ETS is dead. In policy terms it is a rebuttal of the process whereby climate scientists, international diplomats and some economists came up against reality and failed to find the path they wanted. The politicians' job now is to find a way out of the mess.

How did this come about? Bullying. Environmentalists were given too much prominence because too many advocates for other causes stood aside. Even within the climate abatement debate there was bullying. The ETS has a premium on setting limits to greenhouse gases, but in so doing causes price to fluctuate. A carbon tax can make price more certain (at least that part which is the tax) but cannot guarantee certainty in greenhouse gas output.

Cap and trade won over carbon taxes because the environmental lobby was obsessed with setting an absolute limit of carbon output. It drove the economists to deliver a cap-and-trade mechanism. But it will not work without a full international market. And that will not happen, not even in the wildest dreams of the international bureaucracy's wildest fantasies. Cap and trade was road-tested in Europe. But Europe is not the rest of the world. Europe has been working on a common market for 50 years. In a sense the carbon cap and trade suited its greater cause of bedding down its internal market and, incidentally, building barriers to other trading blocs.

The advocates of cap and trade lost their way because the process has been so drawn out.

Copenhagen is the 15th UN Climate Change Conference. The game changed beneath the players. Cap and trade seemed a sensible goal when participants aspired to a global response, but without a global response cap and trade falls in a hole.

China and India signed a joint agreement on climate change in October, in which both rejected legally binding caps on their CO2 output and gave equal priority to adaptation and mitigation.

So cap and trade is dead; what to do now? The Coalition at least had a debate; at no time has Labor debated climate change or mitigation strategies or countenanced adaptation as a strategy.

Labor simply chased one mitigation non-solution. The Rudd ETS was a giant washing machine churning taxes. Labor looks vulnerable to an attack that its politicians are dreamers, willing to chase far off threats while forgetting to care about more immediate matters closer to home.

Gary Johns was a minister in the Hawke Labor government.

[Guest]

Even better Chook you can listen to Gary Johns interviewed here

http://www.4bc.com.au/displayPopUpPl...sts/gjohns.mp3

[Guest]

A look into our not to distant future

http://green-agenda.com/index.html

[Guest]

These African countries want 5% of developed nations GDP per year. Someone can correct if I'm wrong but thats around $50 Billion dollars a year they want from us.

http://en.cop15.dk/news/view+news?newsid=2955

Africa considering tough demands
According to a draft text, 50 African countries are considering demanding five percent of rich nations' GDPs for developing countries, plus deep emission cuts, reports Danish daily Politiken.
Marianne Bom
12/12/2009 17:50
The African Group is discussing tough financial demands of the developed countries at the UN climate conference.

In a draft text quoted by Danish daily Politiken, the group of 50 countries proposes that rich countries pay five percent of their GDPs to developing countries in support for their fight against climate change.

Asking for five percent would be a very ambitious demand, compared to the funding so far mentioned at the climate negotiations. Five percent of the United States’ GDP alone amounts to 722 billion US dollars (2008 figures). In comparison, the EU has calculated the developing countries’ total need for climate funding to 130 billion dollars (100 billion euro) annually by 2020.

According to the draft, the African Group asks for 400 billion dollars for developing countries from 2010-2012, while the UN estimates the need to be 10 billion dollars each of the three years.

Finally, the text – dated 11 Dec. – suggests that rich countries cut emissions by 50 percent by 2017 compared to 1990 levels, rising to 65 percent by 2020, which are much deeper cuts than offered so far during the negotiations.

The 50 African countries now debate what numbers should be posted in the final text, Politiken reports. The African Group had announced a press briefing on Saturday, however the chairman of the group, Algerian Kamel Djemouai, never turned up, writes www.politiken.dk.

[Guest]

The ****ers are trying to destroy our economy so we will more readily except the communist solution



http://ronboswell.com/?p=828

Reports from Copenhagen that Australia supports a levy on shipping and aviation to assist climate aid for developing countries should be immediately clarified by Minister Wong,” said The Nationals’ Senator Ron Boswell today.

“There is apparently a joint proposal between Australia, Norway, Mexico and the UK that proposes such a levy.”

“Australia is a trading nation a long way away from most of our export destinations. If an international levy on shipping is implemented we will suffer far more than other countries. It will be another black mark on our competitiveness as it adds yet another cost to our goods.”

“Tourism in Australia will also suffer as flights here will become more expensive than other destinations closer to Europe and North America.”

“I asked Minister Wong in Parliament on 15 September whether the government supported this levy policy and she would not give a straight answer.”

“A levy on shipping and aviation is not in Australia’s interests. It makes Australia suffer more than our trading partners and competitors. This has never been discussed with the Australian people.”

“This proposal to hurt Australian jobs and business has been worked on secretly without open political debate. It is a shocker and shows that the Rudd government can not be trusted to tell Australians what is going on or look after their interests.”

“The Rudd government climate policy is designed purely for the world stage. It takes no mind of jobs and business back home.”

ENDS

[Guest]

Al Gore Gaia Goose

Part 1

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6956783.ece


After a night in a hotel I don’t expect to have to defend my religion or re-enact the crusades Rod Liddle


Inconvenient truth for Al Gore as his North Pole sums don't add up

Al Gore's office admitted that the percentage he quoted in his speech was from an old, ballpark figure
Hannah Devlin, Ben Webster, Philippe Naughton in Copenhagen

There are many kinds of truth. Al Gore was poleaxed by an inconvenient one yesterday.

The former US Vice-President, who became an unlikely figurehead for the green movement after narrating the Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth, became entangled in a new climate change “spin” row.

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.

The embarrassing error cast another shadow over the conference after the controversy over the hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, which appeared to suggest that scientists had manipulated data to strengthen their argument that human activities were causing global warming.

Mr Gore is not the only titan of the world stage finding Copenhagen to be a tricky deal.

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.

Meanwhile, five hours of negotiating time were lost yesterday when developing countries walked out in protest over the lack of progress on their demand for legally binding emissions targets from rich nations. The move underlined the distrust between rich and poor countries over the proposed legal framework for the deal.

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.

Perhaps Mr Gore had felt the need to gild the lily to buttress resolve. But his speech was roundly criticised by members of the climate science community. “This is an exaggeration that opens the science up to criticism from sceptics,” Professor Jim Overland, a leading oceanographer at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said.

“You really don’t need to exaggerate the changes in the Arctic.”

Others said that, even if quoted correctly, Dr Maslowski’s six-year projection for near-ice-free conditions is at the extreme end of the scale. Most climate scientists agree that a 20 to 30-year timescale is more likely for the near-disappearance of sea ice.

“Maslowski’s work is very well respected, but he’s a bit out on a limb,” said Professor Peter Wadhams, a specialist in ocean physics at the University of Cambridge.

Dr Maslowki, who works at the US Naval Postgraduate School in California, said that his latest results give a six-year projection for the melting of 80 per cent of the ice, but he said he expects some ice to remain beyond 2020.

He added: “I was very explicit that we were talking about near-ice-free conditions and not completely ice-free conditions in the northern ocean. I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this,” he said. “It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at, based on the information I provided to Al Gore’s office.”

Richard Lindzen, a climate scientist at the Massachusets Institute of Technology who does not believe that global warming is largely caused by man, said: “He’s just extrapolated from 2007, when there was a big retreat, and got zero.”