report on Doha from Jo Nova
Doha: dead- Kyoto: kaput, but NGO's win anyway (?)
How is Doha going? (Where was that, again?)
The Indians have gone home, The Chinese are being told off. Nobody else is very interested, except developing nations looking for a hand-out. The Australians already agreed to everything whatever it is. (Great negotiation ploy by our Labour Government that.) The EU wants to do what it’s already doing.
Mike Haseler at the Scottish Climate and Energy Forum says it’s all over, bar the shouting. Kyoto ends on December 31, and there is no treaty to replace it, and there can be no ratified treaty by Jan 1.
“Contrary to what many green NGOs are saying, the Kyoto commitment to CO2 reduction will cease effect on the 31st December. This is because the treaty requires amendments to be ratified well before they come into effect (by 3rd October). It took some 4 years for a quorum of countries to ratify Kyoto. Even if there were total agreement at Doha on any amendment (there isn’t) the earliest change to Kyoto is 2015. Without agreement the earliest if there were agreement at the end of next year is that a change to the Kyoto Commitment could come into force in 2016."
Climate Scam: A dire threat to sovereignty.
DOHA, Qatar – Ms. Christiana Figueres, chief secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, has told a press conference here that the 18th Conference of the States Parties will bring about “a complete economic transformation of the world.”
She does not have in mind a democratic, free-market transformation. The intention of these 18 successive annual vacations for the world’s pampered dictators in exotic, sun-drenched locations is what it always was: to create a treaty binding more than 190 nations to do as the Secretariat says. Democracy? What’s that?
Todd Stern, the U.S. lead negotiator, was similarly upbeat at his own press conference here. With all the fervor of an evangelical preacher in an Alabama mega-church, he predicted that the “Doha Way Forward,” following the “Bali Road-Map,” the “Durban Platform,” etc., would achieve a second Kyoto Protocol – a treaty that all the nations of the world would ratify.
H.E. Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary-General, United Nations First Avenue and East 44th Street, New York, New York, U.S.A. November 29, 2012
On November 9 this year you told the General Assembly: “Extreme weather due to climate change is the new normal … Our challenge remains, clear and urgent: to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to strengthen adaptation to … even larger climate shocks … and to reach a legally binding climate agreement by 2015 … This should be one of the main lessons of Hurricane Sandy.”
On November 13 you said at Yale: “The science is clear; we should waste no more time on that debate.”
The following day, in Al Gore’s “Dirty Weather” Webcast, you spoke of “more severe storms, harsher droughts, greater floods”, concluding: “Two weeks ago, Hurricane Sandy struck the eastern seaboard of the United States. A nation saw the reality of climate change. The recovery will cost tens of billions of dollars. The cost of inaction will be even higher. We must reduce our dependence on carbon emissions.”
We the undersigned, qualified in climate-related matters, wish to state that current scientific knowledge does not substantiate your assertions.
by Alan Caruba
You likely did not read much, if anything, in the mainstream press about the climate change conference that was held in Doha, Qatar. The same applies to television and radio news. These are the folks who introduced the Kyoto Protocols in 1997 with the intention to reduce greenhouse gas emissions said to be causing global warming. The U.S. Senate unanimously rejected them in an exercise of good sense we don’t always associate with that august body.
COP18, shorthand for the Conference of Parties, brought together under the aegis of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), was especially devious. Thanks to the Committee for A Constructive Tomorrow those of us keeping an eye on these charlatans, intent on transferring billions from developed nations to those that have failed to keep pace, we learned on December 8th that “The negotiations here in Doha have gone into overtime.”
Climate alarmists didn’t get all they wanted – but they put us on a very slippery slope
For people who believe humans can prevent “catastrophic climate change” by adjusting atmospheric carbon dioxide levels by a few parts per million – or are determined to crave control “destructive” fossil fuels and “unsustainable” economic systems – Doha was a failure.
Only 37 of 194 nations signed the treaty that replaces the Kyoto Protocol, which expires December 31 – and several countries may withdraw their consent. That means the new agreement is legally non-binding and covers only 15% of global carbon dioxide emissions.
The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition
15 November 2012
The “hysterical and ill-informed rants” in Parliament by Green Party MPs following the Government’s decision not to recommit to the Kyoto Protocol have been criticized by the chairman of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, Hon Barry Brill.
“The use of emotive terms like ‘ecocide’ and scaremongering claims of detriment to our children and grandchildren is over-the-top rhetoric which has become typical of Green Party reaction to all climate-related issues. The Government’s decision to back the mainstream negotiating track has nothing whatever to do with jeopardising children or being ‘clean’ or ‘pure’. It’s simply a decision that makes practical sense, said Mr Brill.
As long expected, the Government has announced that future climate change commitments will be made through the UN’s negotiating track, rather than the alternative Kyoto track sponsored by the EU.
by Ken Ring 23 October 2012
Environmental scientists appear to have reached consensus. They are at last agreed that the jury is still out on climate change and global warming. Many skeptical reports at university level have emerged, and those in the field seem to agree that what once they thought was reliable evidence is now too shaky.
A week ago the British metservice released its finding that global warming stopped 16 years ago and that their computer models to project global warming were deeply flawed.
Associate Professor of Physical Geography, James Renwick of NIWA last week admitted that "in the Antarctic in total the ice is growing, and when you add up what is happening around the continent the area of sea ice has been increasing for at least 20 years or so”.
His comments were backed up by the National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Boulder, Colorado, which has said Antarctic sea ice reached a maximum extent of 19.44 million square kms in September 2012, with a record high monthly average of 19.39 million square kms, being slightly higher than the previous record in 2006.
In his Geological Society of America abstract, Dr. Don Easterbrook, Professor of Geology at Western Washington University, presented data showing that the global warming blip from 1977 to 1998 is over and we have entered into global cooling that should last for the next thirty years.
Seeds of Change:
Solutions sprouting from grass-roots efforts
By Tom Knudson
(Published April 26, 2001 - 5 of 5)
Change is knocking on the door of America's environmental movement. Change is remodeling it from within.
From the outside, the pressure is coming from ranchers, corporate executives, small-town merchants, educators, schoolkids and other ordinary people embracing a home-grown style of environmentalism that is quietly saving species, restoring forests and grasslands, and preserving open space.
From the inside, it is coming from a broad spectrum of environmentalists -- chief executive officers, fund-raising specialists, state directors, program officers, lawyers and others -- struggling to bring more science, entrepreneurial skill, accountability, teamwork and results to a movement they say has grown self-righteous, inefficient, chaotic and shrill.
"Haphazard conservation is worse than haphazard development. We've had haphazard conservation for 30 years," said Patrick Noonan, chairman of The Conservation Fund, a Virginia group that provides financial and technical support to small environmental organizations.
Yet this new brand of stewardship remains more seed than storm, lacking the clamor and conflict that often accompany environmental news. Its disciples do not view the world darkly. Their habitat is one of hope, not hype.
"We've effectively sold the idea that the world is screwed up," said Dan Taylor, executive director of the National Audubon Society's California chapter. "What people are looking for now are some durable solutions on how to make it better."
Playing with fire: Spin on science
puts national treasure at risk
(Fourth of five parts)
By Tom Knudson
Bee Staff Writer
(Published April 25, 2001)
The scientific paper that landed on Tammy Randall-Parker's desk was thick with jargon and data. But to Randall-Parker, a biologist with the Coconino National Forest in Arizona, it was riveting.
Citing an enormous accumulation of vegetation and deadwood in Western forests -- the legacy of years of effective federal firefighting -- the report by a prestigious team of specialists warned that unless such stands were thinned, they were likely to erupt into flame, threatening a rare, falcon-like bird: the northern goshawk.
Randall-Parker felt compelled to act. But when she and others suggested thinning near a goshawk nest, environmentalists protested on the bird's behalf, stopping the proposal dead.
Then came the fire that Randall-Parker feared. "I watched it just explode," she said. The 1996 blaze devoured centuries-old trees as if they were kindling -- including the one that cradled the goshawk nest.
"There was not a green tree left," she said. "What the scientists said could happen -- did happen, right in front of my eyes."
Environmental advocacy has long struggled with scientific fact, despite its very basis in science. But in the battle over the majestic conifer forests that blanket much of the West, advocacy is often shoving science aside -- and forests, wildlife and human communities are suffering the consequences.
Tweaking science to make a point is nothing new for environmental groups. To protect rare species, for example, some groups trot out just those studies -- or snippets of studies -- that support their view. Some will pick and choose facts that serve their interests in campaigns to create wilderness areas.