Representatives of most of the world's poor countries have walked out of increasingly fractious climate negotiations after the EU, Australia, the US and other developed countries insisted that the question of who should pay compensation for extreme climate events be discussed only after 2015. The orchestrated move by the G77 and China bloc of 132 countries came during talks about "loss and damage" – how countries should respond to climate impacts that are difficult or impossible to adapt to, such as typhoon Haiyan. --John Vidal, The Guardian, 20 November 2013
"The EU understands that the issue is incredibly important for developing countries. But they should be careful about … creating a new institution. This is not [what] this process needs," said Connie Hedegaard, EU climate commissioner. She ruled out their most important demand, insisting: "We cannot have a system where we have automatic compensation when severe events happen around the world. That is not feasible." --John Vidal, The Guardian, 20 November 2013
There’s a magic number the news media likes to cite whenever the United Nations releases a new report on Global Warming. The public is constantly told that 97 percent of scientific experts agree that human activity is responsible for dangerous levels of global warming. Therefore, the U.S., and other western nations, must dramatically reshape public policy with an eye toward reducing fossil fuels. But it doesn’t take a lot of investigation to take down that 97 percent figure and expose the gamesmanship and duplicity advanced under the cover of “science.”
Lawrence Solomon, executive director of Energy Probe and author of The Deniers, carefully explains how dishonest researchers cooked the books:
A new paper just hit the scientific literature that argues that the apparent pause in the rise in global average surface temperatures during the past 16 years was really just a slowdown.
As you may imagine, this paper, by Kevin Cowtan and Robert Way is being hotly discussed in the global warming blogs, with reaction ranging from a warm embrace by the global-warming-is-going-to-be-bad-for-us crowd to revulsion from the human-activities-have-no-effect-on-the-climate claque.
The lukewarmers (a school we take some credit for establishing) seem to be taking the results in stride. After all, the “pause” as curious as it is/was, is not central to the primary argument that, yes, human activities are pressuring the planet to warm, but that the rate of warming is going to be much slower than is being projected by the collection of global climate models (upon which mainstream projections of future climate change—and the resulting climate alarm (i.e., calls for emission regulations, etc.)—are based).
In Calgary, an anti-Keystone pipeline group staged an indoor protest in the walkway between the headquarters of Enbridge and TransCanada Corp.:
Chantal Chagnon with the Idle No More movement, said they’re trying to get the attention of the energy industry and the Canadian Parliament to the growing global opposition to “pipelines, tar sands expansions and other polices that contribute to runaway climate change.”
“We’re seeing the effects of global warming and we can’t keep denying it because obviously something is happening,” Chagnon said.
As you can see, only a handful of protesters turned out:
I reported yesterday that green activists play an institutionalized role at climate summits – summits that are supposed to be negotiating sessions between sovereign nations.
Unlike the public – which is barred from attending the currently-in-progress Warsaw summit – these activists are permitted to set up booths and to distribute mountains of literature/green propaganda. They are given ample opportunity to lobby delegates one-on-one, and to schmooze with the international press corps.
But it’s worse than that. The UN also gives these groups access to top-notch press conference facilities. In some cases, repeatedly.
Yesterday, the Climate Action Network (read: Greenpeace), held an exceedingly well-attended press conference at 12:30. Today, their press conference will take place at 11 am.
Is there such a thing as "global warming pragmatism?" Robert J. Samuelson, who writes on economics for the Washington Post, thinks so -- and he's just flat wrong. Samuelson seeks to bridge differences over a polarized and contentious issue: "man-made" global warming. Problem is, Samuelson's bridge is plenty of girders, cables, concrete, and asphalt short of making it to the other shore.
Samuelson is much taken with the work of an MIT economist, Robert Pindyck. Pindyck, according to Samuelson is a difference-splitter. Can't say that global warming is overstated, but can't say it's understated. When in doubt, tax -- carbon tax everything -- though modestly, just in case.
In Samuelson's very own words:
Is the United Nations setting the coal industry up for a disappointment by urging them to adopt technology that’s not commercially proven?
UN climate chief Christiana Figueres told the global coal industry on Monday that it needs to be part of the effort to stem global warming and change the way it does business for “everyone’s sake.”
“The world is rising to meet the climate challenge as risks of inaction mount, and it is in your best interest to make coal part of the solution,” Figueres said, adding that older coal plants must be closed to make way for new plants with technology to capture carbon emissions.
Figueres also warned the coal industry that most of the world’s coal reserves must stay underground to meet the UN’s climate goals of limiting warming to two degrees Celsius.
Hysteria: We thought we'd try to head off the sure-to-come claims that man-made global warming caused the deadly Midwest storms over the weekend. But we were too late. The alarmists got to work early.
A swarm of tornadoes and severe thunderstorms blew through at least a dozen states Sunday, killing, maiming and destroying.
Entire neighborhood blocks are gone, trees have been torn out by their roots, hundreds of thousands have no power and stunned survivors try to slog through the recovery and restoration of their lives.
Making this tragedy even worse are alarmists who try to score political points on the lost and devastated lives.
Last week the Japanese government announced that it would adopt a new emissions reductions target:
A government panel on measures to tackle climate change approved on Friday a new goal to reduce the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions by 3.8 percent by 2020 from the 2005 level. . .Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said he is sure that Japan can substantially contribute to global efforts to tackle climate change. The government will steadily implement necessary measures to achieve the new emissions reduction target, he said.The new goal means a setback from the target of reducing emissions by 25 percent from 1990 by 2020, which was set in 2009 by the administration led by the Democratic Party of Japan. The DPJ is now an opposition party.
In a 2009 paper I explained why Japan's proposed emissions targets were unrealistic and would almost certainly not be met (paper here, open access, note a figure correction here).
Cloud expert Dr. Greg Holland, senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, says in a Huff Post article today, "The current consensus on this from the IPCC is that the clouds are in the net warming. Not real sure. There is a possibility that the other effects are dominating and they could be cooling. So this is one of those areas that we need to know a lot more."
Indeed, many peer-reviewed studies find clouds have a net cooling negative-feedback effect, opposite of the claims of the IPCC of a net warming positive-feedback effect. This single erroneous programming assumption of the IPCC climate models, along with an inability to model cloud cover, can alone explain all warming of the 20th century without any influence of greenhouse gases.
As Dr. Roy Spencer notes,
Jeffrey D SachsGlobal warming has been blamed for dozens of devastating tornadoes and thunderstorms that ravaged America’s Midwest this weekend.
Former United Nations adviser and economist Jeffrey Sachs tweeted out Sunday night that the severe storms that hit Illinois on Sunday were the result of human-induced global warming.
Weather tragedy in Illinois. Research shows human-induced warming is likely to lead to more severe thunderstorms. http://t.co/aHLJZqi8ji
— Jeffrey D. Sachs (@JeffDSachs) November 18, 2013
Today’s tornadoes in Illinois were very uncommon in number and severity for the month of November. Not unprecedented, but very uncommon.
— Jeffrey D. Sachs (@JeffDSachs) November 18, 2013