Science czar John Holdren, who will testified on Capitol Hill last week at a hearing on Climategate, infamously hyped weather catastrophes and demographic disasters in the 1970s with his population control pals Paul and Anne Ehrlich.
He [also] made a public bet against free-market economist Julian Simon, predicting dire shortages of five natural resources as a result of feared overconsumption. He lost on all counts. No matter.
Leaders of developing countries angrily accused rich nations of cutting them out of the negotiations at the Copenhagen climate summit after the leak of a secret draft agreement.
“It is a fundamental reworking of the UN balance of obligations, being done in secret,” one diplomat said. “Clearly the intention is to get Obama and the leaders of other rich countries to muscle it through when they arrive next week. It effectively is the end of the UN process.”
On Tuesday, just two days into this marathon two-week summit meeting here, increasingly loud rumblings were emanating from the camps representing heavily forested countries, small island nations and Africa’s mostly poor states that a demonstration of defiance may be necessary to focus the world’s attention on their plight.
The Tip of the Climategate Iceberg
Most of the participants in Copenhagen seem intent on rushing headlong into a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. But it would seem more fruitful at this point to redouble our efforts to figure out what we do and don’t know about the climate’s past, present and future. That includes casting some much-needed sunshine on the data on which so much importance is being placed, but which so far has remained shielded from public view.
Copenhagen is not about saving the environment; it’s about rewiring the world economy. A scheme to transfer hundreds of billions of dollars a year from the industrialized world to less developed nations must be central to any agreement in Denmark. Thus the lobbying over the respective sizes of “slices” of the “pie” has already begun. First in line is Bangladesh, a nation which is supposedly threatened by the loss of large amounts of territory if sea levels rise as dramatically as the IPCC is threatening.
And what does Bangladesh want from the nations of the world? Fifteen percent “cut” of the “take.”
Markey, the head of a House global warming committee, said during a hearing that his Republican colleagues “sit over here using a couple of e-mails to (tell us) how to deal with a catastrophic threat to our planet.” And: “There is no alternative theory that the minority is proposing, other than that we know has been funded by the oil, by the coal industries that want to continue business as usual.”
That’s a bit of an overstatement. The leak includes over 1,000 e-mail messages, and another 2,500 or so computer files, many of which are still being analyzed. And the burden of proof should properly be on anyone — even a House committee chairman — proposing new taxes and extensive regulations, especially when climate science is anything but settled.
House Republicans on Tuesday warned President Obama not to commit the United States to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions at this month’s climate change conference in Copenhagen, saying that Congress would reject any such agreement.
The Republicans said Mr. Obama must avoid a repeat of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, a carbon emissions reduction treaty that was signed by then Vice President Al Gore but never enacted by Congress.
The Climate Science Isn’t Settled (1 Dec 09 Wall Street Journal)
Claims that climate change is accelerating are bizarre. There is general support for the assertion that GATA has increased about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit since the middle of the 19th century. The quality of the data is poor, though, and because the changes are small, it is easy to nudge such data a few tenths of a degree in any direction.
Phi Beta Iota: The idiocy of both the Democrats in the USA and the media generally (but most especially in the UK) should not be startling, but it really is. Even the Secretary General of the UN is totally out of line in his own statements. The science is NOT settled. Carbon is not only a small part of the total environmental toxicity, but it is vastly cheaper and more beneficial to focus on mercury and sulfer. At the same time, the science is not there for renewable energy. Wind has been overblown, it will take decades to set up infrastructure (unless we focus strongly on household bottom-up energy), and the plain fact is that all these politicians are talking CRAP and making promises they cannot keep. ClimateGate is a brilliant example of how inept the US Government is at actually sorting out the facts and creating actionable intelligence. There is not a single issue before the public today on which the U.S. Intelligence Community (or any other entity such as a Cabinet Department or the Office of Management and Budget) has demonstrated competent understanding. For the head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to say on national television that “the science is settled” makes it quite clear she is completely ignorant of the science, and reading from a crib sheet written by staff who may understand the science, but are totally focused on political deception of the public. The truth at any cost reduces all other costs.