UN climate conference faces four obstacles: Chinese official
This conference cannot end with hollow commitments of developed countries, which cannot be fulfilled like its predecessors.
“China's position on this issue is very clear — the Bali Roadmap must be fully respected,” said Xie. Therefore, it is not necessary for the voluntary emission reduction actions taken by developing countries to be “measurable, reportable and verifiable.”
Under the Treaty Clause in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, the President of the United States is only empowered to make treaties with other nations only after obtaining the consent of a two-thirds supermajority of the United States Senate. This has not yet happened, nor will it before Obama goes to Copenhagen with the EPA declaration. Yet the Obama administration has indicated that the President will sign a binding treaty which will force the U.S. to commit to a twenty percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2020.
I grimace at the thought, because the study of climate change, under the aegis of “dangerous global warming caused by human carbon dioxide emissions,” has long since been captured by the small group of well connected, well networked and well funded atmospheric scientists and computer modellers who advise the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and whose nearly every utterance confirms their ignorance of the true course of climate history and change on our planet – a topic that is the domain of geologists, not meteorologists and computer jockeys.
Time Spins Again On Climategate
Time magazine’s Bryan Walsh has once again produced a piece of obfuscatory prose about Climategate, re-spinning the line that those scientists whose emails were leaked did nothing wrong, except perhaps being too harsh to critics.
Why Failure in Copenhagen Would Be a Success
Politicians have wasted nearly 20 years without making significant progress in our well-meaning but fanciful quest of cutting carbon emissions. We have no more time to waste on a critically flawed response to global warming.
A successful outcome could still be salvaged from this meeting's failure, but only if decisionmakers acknowledge the reasons why agreement on drastic, short-term carbon cuts has proven elusive, and start to consider smarter options.
Here's Why People Don't Buy Global Warming
Why don't people buy global warming? Doubtless the poor economy has pushed less immediate worries to the background. But even before the e-mails revealed that supposed neutral truth seekers were prepared to “redefine peer review,” and engage in statistical sleight of hand “to hide” inconvenient truths, there were ample reasons for skepticism. [6 reasons then outlined.]
Ann Coulter: Do Smoking Guns Cause Global Warming, Too?
Most disturbingly, the CRU-affiliated “scientists” were caught red-handed conspiring to kill the careers and reputations of scientists who dissented from the religion of global warming. Indignant that scientific journals were publishing papers skeptical of global warming, the cult members plotted to get editors ousted and the publications discredited.
Enter John Holdren, who in one exchange wrote, “I'm forwarding for your entertainment an exchange that followed from my being quoted in the Harvard Crimson to the effect that you and your colleagues are right and my ‘Harvard' colleagues Soon and Baliunas are wrong about what the evidence shows concerning surface temperatures over the past millennium.”
According to Dr. Ball, “Holdren provides lengthy responses on October 13, 14, and 16 but comments fail to answer [‘man-made' climate change skeptic Nick] Schulz's questions … He then demonstrates his lack of understanding of science and climate science by opting for Mann and his hockey stick over Soon and Baliunas. His entire defense and position devolves to a political position. His attempt to belittle Soon and Baliunas in front of colleagues is a measure of the man's blindness and political opportunism that pervades everything he says or does.”
This is not the first time the media has aided the scientific community in an effort to warn the world about atmospheric Armageddon. Writes Gary Sutton at Forbes.com: “Many of you are too young to remember, but in 1975 our government pushed ‘the coming ice age’… Random House dutifully printed ‘THE WEATHER CONSPIRACY … coming of the New Ice Age.’ This may be the only book ever written by 18 authors. All 18 lived just a short sled ride from Washington, D.C. Newsweek fell in line and did a cover issue warning us of global cooling on April 28, 1975. And The New York Times, Aug. 14, 1976, reported ‘many signs that Earth may be headed for another ice age.”
56 newspapers in 45 countries can’t be wrong, can they? No more than Newsweek and the New York Times were wrong in the 1970’s, not to mention The National Science Board who also sounded the “ice age” alarm in 1974.
