S-e-S Redux: Copenhagen?

[Suraj]

Here's the text of the leaked draft of the controversial Danish proposal from The Guardian's link

DRAFT 271109 Decision 1/CP.15 (Decision 1/CMP.5 in separate document)

Adoption of The Copenhagen Agreement Under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

The Conference of the Parties, Pursuant to the Bali Road Map adopted by the Conference of the Parties at its thirteenth session, Acknowledging and building on the work by the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action under the Convention and the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol,

Sharing a commitment to take immediate and enhanced national action under the Convention in pursuit of its ultimate objective, and in accordance with its principles and commitments including the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities,

Seeking at the same time to move ahead promptly to take action related to address climate change, Believing it imperative that the Parties continue to work together constructively to strengthen the world’s ability to combat climate change,

Affirming the need to continue negotiations pursuant to decisions taken at COP13 and COP15, with a view to agreeing on a comprehensive legal framework under the Convention no later than COPXX Decides to adopt this political agreement (hereinafter “the Copenhagen Agreement”), which will become effective immediately.

The Copenhagen Agreement

1. The Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (hereinafter “the Parties”) seek to further the implementation of the Convention in a manner that pursues its ultimate objective as stated in its Article 2, that recalls its provisions, and that is guided by the principles in Article 3.

I. A Shared Vision for Long-Term Cooperative Action

2. The Parties underline that climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time and commit to a vigorous response through immediate ambitious national action and strengthened international cooperation with a view to limit global average temperature rise to a maximum of 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels. The Parties are convinced of the need to address climate change bearing in mind that social and economic development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities in developing countries. The Parties note that the largest share of historical global emissions of greenhouse gases originates in developed countries, and that per capita emissions in many developing countries are still relatively low. The Parties recognize the urgency of addressing the need for enhanced action on adaptation to climate change. They are equally convinced that moving to a low-emission economy is an opportunity to promote continued economic growth and sustainable development in all countries recognizing that gender equality is essential in achieving sustainable development. In this regard, the Parties:
- Commit to take action to mitigate climate change based on their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities,
- Commit to take action on adaptation including international support assisting the poorest and most vulnerable countries, - Commit to strengthen the international architecture for the provision of substantially increased finance for climate efforts in developing countries,
- Commit to establish a technology mechanism to promote the development, transfer and deployment of environmentally sustainable technologies in support of mitigation and adaptation efforts.

Welcoming the significance of the commitments on all Bali Building blocks reflected in this Agreement, the Parties emphasize the need for full implementation, both domestically and internationally, take note of the additional efforts being taken, and planned, by the Parties, such as cooperative efforts regarding transformational and other technologies; and encourage each other to take appropriate additional steps.

3. Recalling the ultimate objective of the Convention, the Parties stress the urgency of action on both mitigation and adaptation and recognize the scientific view that the increase in global average temperature above pre-industrial levels ought not to exceed 2 degrees C. In this regard, the Parties: - Support the goal of a peak of global emissions as soon as possible, but no later than [2020], acknowledging that developed countries collectively have peaked and that the timeframe for peaking will be longer in developing countries, - Support the goal of a reduction of global annual emissions in 2050 by at least 50 percent versus 1990 annual emissions, equivalent to at least 58 percent versus 2005 annual emissions. The Parties contributions towards the goal should take into account common but different responsibility and respective capabilities and a long term convergence of per capita emissions.

II. Adaptation

4. The adverse effects of climate change are already taking place and are posing a serious threat to the social and economic development of all countries. This is particularly true in the most vulnerable developing countries, which will be disproportionally affected. The adverse impact of climate change will constitute an additional burden on developing countries´ efforts to reduce poverty, to attain sustainable development and to achieve the United Nations Millennium Development Goals. Both adaptation and mitigation efforts are fundamental to the fight against climate change. Adaptation must include action to reduce risk and vulnerability, taking into account gender equality, and build resilience in order to reduce the threats, loss and damages to livelihoods and ecosystems from disasters caused by extreme weather events and from slow-onset events caused by gradual climate change. Recognizing that the impact of climate change will differ according to regional and national circumstances, planning and implementation of adaptation actions must be considered in the context of the social, economic and environmental policies of each country. Adaptation action at national level will be a country driven process taking into account national development priorities and plans.

5. In this regard, the Parties endorse the adaptation framework in decision X4/CP.15 with the objective of reducing vulnerability and building resilience to present and future effects of climate change through national action and international cooperation. This includes the provision of finance, technology and capacity building in the immediate, medium and long-term. Support should be provided with priority for the poorest and most vulnerable countries. In the context of this Framework institutional arrangements will be established over time to support Parties’ actions and provide technical assistance including for risk reduction and provide financial risk transfer such as insurance. Further, this will include a system to ensure mutual accountability with monitoring, review and assessment of support and actions and share lessons learned. A share of fast-start financing comprising [$X] for 2010-12 will be provided through existing channels, including the Adaptation Fund, to implement actions identified in National Adaptation Programmes of Action and other urgent needs and to build capacity for further planning. III. Mitigation

6. The shared vision limiting global average temperature rise to a maximum of 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels is addressed by nationally appropriate mitigation contributions to be carried out by the Parties consistent with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities and with developed countries taking the lead. Developed Countries nationally appropriate mitigation commitments and actions

7. The developed country Parties commit to individual national economy wide targets for 2020. The targets in Attachment A would expect to yield aggregate emissions reductions by X1 percent by 2020 versus 1990 (X2 percent vs. 2005). The purchase of international offset credits will play a supplementary role to domestic action. The developed country Parties support a goal to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases in aggregate by 80% or more by 2050 versus 1990 (X3 percent versus 2005).

8. Attachment A reflects the individual economy-wide targets, including quantified emission limitation and reduction objectives by all the developed country Parties.

Developing countries nationally appropriate mitigation actions

9. The developing country Parties, except the least developed countries which may contribute at their own discretion, commit to nationally appropriate mitigation actions, including actions supported and enabled by technology, financing and capacity-building. The developing countries’ individual mitigation action could in aggregate yield a [Y percent] deviation in [2020] from business as usual and yielding their collective emissions peak before [20XX] and decline thereafter.

10. Attachment B reflects individual commitments to nationally appropriate mitigation actions by developing country Parties. Developing country parties which have not reflected their contributions at COP15 should do so before [XX], except least developed countries. A developing country Party may subsequently amend its national contribution to register additional national appropriate mitigation actions which increase its overall mitigation outcome.

11. A Registry in the form of a database under UNFCCC is established in order to enable the international recognition of developing country mitigation action. The Registry shall include supported mitigation actions that meet agreed MRV specifications and unsupported actions that are subject to national MRV based on internationally agreed guidelines and a consultative review under UNFCCC. Developing countries commit to inscribe supported nationally appropriate mitigation actions in the Registry and indicate the expected emissions outcomes. Unsupported action shall, except for the least developed countries which may do so at their own discretion, be inscribed via the National Communications and can be inscribed directly in the Registry beforehand on a voluntary basis.

Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation

12. Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation is an important aspect of the necessary response to climate change. Developing countries should contribute to enhanced mitigation actions through reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, maintaining existing and enhancing carbon stocks, and enhancing removals by increasing forest cover. Parties underline the importance of enhanced and sustained financial resources and positive incentives for developing countries to, through a series of phases, build capacity and undertake actions that result in measurable, reportable and verifiable greenhouse gas emission reductions and removal and changes in forest carbon stocks in relation to reference emission levels. Parties collectively endorse the framework in Decision X/CP.15, with the aim of stabilizing forest cover in developing countries by [X] and reducing gross deforestation in developing countries by at least [XX]% by [2020] compared to current levels.

Bunkers

13. An effective mitigation response includes reduction of emissions from international bunker fuels. The Parties therefore commit to set and implement a global emission reduction target for international shipping equal to [x]% in 2020 compared to [2005] and a global emission reduction target for international aviation equal to [y]% in 2020 compared to [2005]. The Parties shall work through the International Maritime Organization and the International Civil Aviation Organization to take this issue forward and secure a timely implementation of actions needed,

Carbon markets

14. An effective mitigation response requires a well functioning carbon market. Carbon markets have the potential to deliver significant mutual benefits to developed and developing countries in terms of both on-the-ground investment and environmental and energy security co-benefits. The Parties will work towards an effective and orderly transition from project based to more comprehensive approaches. They will also improve the existing project based carbon market mechanism in order to ensure the environmental integrity and further underpin a broad and liquid carbon market. [In this regard, the Parties endorse decision X3/CP.15 and X2/CMP.5.]

National policies

15. The Parties commit to further integrate low-emission development policies into national planning. The Parties commit to rationalize and phase out over the medium term inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption. As we do that, we recognize the importance of providing those in need with the ability to purchase essential energy services, including through the use of targeted cash transfers and other appropriate mechanisms. In addition, the Parties commit to work towards adopting domestic policies aiming at payment for actual consumption of energy. Furthermore, transparency concerning consumption and cost of energy should be increased.

Response measures

16. Parties decide that countries must strive to implement policies and measures in such a way as to minimize adverse social, environmental and economic impacts on developing country Parties taking fully into account all relevant articles of the Convention and as set forth in decision in X/CP.15. Parties further decide that action relating to response measures should be handled in a structured manner, in accordance with the Convention recognizing the needs of developing country Parties and as set forth in decision X/CP.15.

IV. Technology

17. The international community can only be fully successful in addressing climate change if it is able to effectively develop, diffuse and deploy existing climate friendly technologies and rapidly innovate new and transformational climate-friendly technologies. This will require a combination of efforts, including substantially increased public and private sector investment in RD&D, enhanced international cooperation and transfers, the removal of barriers, increased incentives to promote the development and dissemination of environmentally sustainable technologies, elaboration of global technology roadmaps, information sharing on best practices, and greater capacity-building efforts to promote the development and deployment of environmentally sustainable technologies in support of mitigation and adaptation efforts.

18. Parties commit to enable the accelerated large-scale development, transfer and deployment of environmentally sound and climate friendly technologies across all stages of the technology cycle, respecting IPR regimes including protecting the legitimate interests of public and private innovators. Developed country parties commit to work towards doubling aggregate public investments in climate related research, development and demonstration by 2015 from current levels and quadrupling the efforts by 2020. Parties stress the need for up front finance for inter alia technology capacity building, joint research and development and demonstration projects. Parties endorse the “Technology Mechanism” set forth in decision X5/CP15, containing a technology objective, a UNFCCC technology body, the development of technology action plans, the establishment of six Climate Technology Innovation Centres in developing countries, support to joint RD&D efforts between developed and developing countries, and technology support to nationally appropriate mitigation actions, and adaptation activities, by developing country Parties.

V. Financial resources and investments to support actions on mitigation, adaptation, capacity-building and technology cooperation

19. Substantially scaled up financial resources will be needed to address mitigation, adaptation, technology and capacity building. It is essential to strengthen the international financial architecture for assisting the developing countries in dealing with climate change and to improve access to financial support. Resources will derive from multiple sources and flow through multiple bilateral and multilateral channels.

20. The Parties share the view that the strengthened financial architecture should be able to handle gradually scaled up international public support. International public finance support to developing countries [should/shall] reach the order of [X] billion USD in 2020 on the basis of appropriate increases in mitigation and adaptation efforts by developing countries.

21. The Parties confirm climate financing committed under this agreement as new and additional resources that supplement existing international public financial flows otherwise available for developing countries in support of poverty alleviation and the continued progress towards the Millennium Development Goals. In this regard: - Developed country parties commit to deliver upfront public financing for 2010-201[2] corresponding on average to [10] billion USD annually for early action, capacity building, technology and strengthening adaptation and mitigation readiness in developing countries as set forth in Attachment C; - From [2013] The Parties commit to regularly review appropriateness of contributions and the circle of contributors against indicators of fairness based on GDP and emissions levels and taking into account the level of development as set forth in Attachment C.

22. Recalling article 4 of the Convention, Parties decide that a Climate Fund be established as an operating entity of the Financial Mechanism of the Convention, which should function under the guidance of and be accountable to the COP as set forth in article 11 of the Convention. The Fund should be operated by a board with balanced representation, which will develop the operational guidelines for the Fund and decide on specific allocation to programmes and projects. The COP will formally elect members of the Fund Board and endorse the operational guidelines and modalities for the Fund. The Fund should complement and maximise global efforts to fight climate change through up-scaled support for climate efforts in the developing countries, including mitigation, adaptation, technology and capacity-building. Support from the Fund may be channeled through multilateral institutions or directly to national entities based on agreed criteria. Parties commit to allocate an initial amount of [$x] to the Fund as part of their international public climate support. Medium term funding should be based on a share of no less than [y%] of the overall international public support. Parties decide to operationalise the work of the Fund following the modalities set forth in annex/decision [Y].

23. In the context of the commitment in paragraph [14] Parties commit to global financing contributions from international aviation and international maritime transport generated through instruments developed and implemented by the ICAO and IMO respectively should be channeled through the Climate Fund from [2013], [mainly for adaption purposes], taking into account the principle of common but differentiated responsibility.

24. To enhance transparency and overview The Parties decide to establish an International Climate Financing Board under the UNFCCC to monitor and review international financing for climate action and in this context identify any gaps and imbalances in the international financing for mitigation and adaptation actions that may arise. The Board will consist of [x] representatives from developed countries and [y] representatives from developing countries. [Z] Representatives from international institutions will participate in the Board as permanent observers. Decision making will be by consensus. [If all efforts to reach a compromise have been exhausted and no agreement has been reached, decisions shall be taken by a two-thirds majority]. The UNFCCC Secretariat will serve as secretariat for the International Climate Financing Board. Parties endorse the further guidelines as set out in attachment D and decision X7/CP.15.

25. [Placeholder for facilitative matching mechanism]

VI: Measurement, Reporting and Verification and improved National Communications

26. The Parties commit to robust measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) of the commitments undertaken in this Agreement and to review global progress in addressing climate change. The Parties endorse the further guidelines as set out in decision X7/CP.15.

Measurement, Reporting and Verification for developed countries

27. In order to promote transparency and accountability the developed country Parties will report on the implementation of their individual mitigation commitments or actions in Annex A, including methodologies and assumptions used. The implementation of the respective mitigation contributions and the related reductions are subject to international measurement, reporting and verification and each developed country Party is to report on emission reductions achieved in relation to targets in Attachment A utilising a common methodology. Finance, technology and capacity building for developing countries actions are subject to robust MRV. Provision of international public climate financing should be verified in conjunction with the MRV of supported action and according to international guidelines.

Measurement, Reporting and Verification for developing countries

28. In order to promote transparency and accountability the developing country Parties will report on the implementation of their individual mitigation actions and emission outcomes achieved in relation to their estimates in Attachment B. The supported mitigation actions and the related reductions are subject to robust MRV. MRV of supported actions must verify that financing as well as action is delivering in full towards commitments. Implementation of developing country mitigation actions that are not externally supported will be subject to national MRV based on international agreed guidelines and a consultative review under UNFCCC.

The Registry

29. Parties decide to establish a Registry that will be managed and operated independently by a professional secretariat which shall perform its tasks to the highest standards of professionalism and objectivity. The secretariat shall further prepare and propose the accounting standards for MRV of specific mitigation action and of financing. [further tasks]

Improved National Communications

30. Noting that low-emission development is indispensable to sustainable development and recognizing that development strategies and priorities are sovereign national decisions, the Parties decide to strengthen the reporting regime and to enhance the forward looking aspects in the National Communication by including mitigation plans. The Parties decide - That Parties are to provide their greenhouse gas inventories on an annual basis with the exception that the developing countries can provide updates on a biannual basis and the least developed country Parties on a triennial basis; - National Communications should be provided every 2 years. The Parties endorse the further guidelines as set out in decision X1/CP.15.
- To include a forward looking mitigation plan would help frame actions planned in the near- and medium- term (2020) in the context of longer-term goals (2050). The plans should describe countries’ current mitigation and energy policy frameworks including regulation and pricing and mitigation potential. For developing countries, these plans will help facilitate access to support for mitigation actions anchored in the plans. The Parties, except the least developed countries which may contribute at their own discretion, are invited to put forward National Communication including forward looking plans as early as possible and [before 31 May 2011] in accordance with revised national communication principles and procedures in [Attachment X]/[Decision X/CP.15]. The plans will be updated every 2 year.
- The Parties will report, as applicable, on support received and support provided to developing countries for their actions in National Communications. A comprehensive set of statistics for climate change finance will be established enabling transparent monitoring of both provision of finance and supported climate actions. Financial flows from the international carbon market should be monitored and recognized separately.
- To enhance and expand the scope of the review of inventories and National Communications a consultation procedure is established under the SBI. The Parties undertake such consultations on the basis of input prepared by a newly established Expert group on National Communications that consider National Communications, including countries’ forward looking plans.

VII: The Copenhagen Process

31. The Parties underline their commitment to immediate action pursuant to this Agreement. Furthermore, the Parties: - Decide to continue negotiations pursuant to decisions taken at COP13 and COP15, with a view to agreeing on a comprehensive legal framework under the Convention no later than COPXX - Decide on a review of commitments and actions under the Convention to be started in 2014 and completed in 2015 with a view of enhancing commitments and actions on mitigation and adaptation, and climate finance to achieve the Convention’s ultimate objective and paragraph 2 and 3 above taking into account the conclusions of the Fifth Assessment Report of IPCC. - Will keep track of overall efforts with a view to ensure full transparency and allow The Parties to strengthen their collective commitments and efforts if necessary to deliver in full towards addressing the climate challenge.

32. The Parties commit to work together in international organizations, including international financial institutions, to further integrate climate aspects in their activities, including country reviews.

It would be a good idea for members to pick and dissect sections carefully.

[ramana]

Suraj, Request your kind oversight on this subject on all posters here.

[abhishek_sharma]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/scien ... 9cost.html

Mr. Stavins said that the bulk of the money would have to come from private investment because, he said, it was “inconceivable” that the governments of the wealthy countries would come up with adequate financing and also because private entities spent money much more efficiently.

How can private investment help in this problem? I thought it would be foreign aid from the governments of rich countries.

The climate and energy legislation passed by the House in June sets aside roughly $8 billion a year for assistance to developing countries by 2030, Mr. Stavins said. That figure, he suggested, represents the upper limit of public financial support from the United States

Only $8 billion?

An additional $10 billion to $20 billion would come from taxes on fuels used in aviation and shipping. The rest, perhaps $25 billion to $35 billion, would be loans and grants from industrialized nations to poorer countries, split roughly three ways among the United States, the European Union and Canada, Japan and Australia.

Loans? Another IMF regime!

[Philip]

"Divide and rule,divide and rule,divide and rule",the old colonial mantra is being dusted off yet again at Copenhagen,this time to make the developing nations and the poorest of them all,bonded labour yet again! What the developing nations that comprise the majority of the General Assembly of the UN should do is to walk away from Copenhagen,draw their own agenda,firm up their own parameters based upon their unique national conditions and set up a G-77 eco-bank to assist themselves.This will benefit them ecologically and harm them far less than imposed conditions being imposed by the richer nations.This will be the forerunner of replacing the IMF too with a friendlier institution for the developing world.The entire structural framework that governs the globe economically,militarily (NPT/CTBT) and politically (UN/UNSC) should be modified,dismantled or destroyed according to the needs of the world's majority of nations and their peoples.

[abhishek_sharma]

Paul Krugman on emissions tax

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/1 ... ul-hansen/

[amit]

Suraj, Ramana ji,

I have a nasty feeling that this "leaked" draft is part of an elaborate ploy. Get everyone worked up with this ridiculous document. And then propose a "slightly" better document and take credit for making a grand gesture. Of course the developing nations like India will be expected to reciprocate...

The timing is also right. The big boys come to the conference next week.

How many times have we seen this routine at all these international conferences?

I just hope the Indian negotiators keep this in mind. I think the key is to keep a watch on how China plays the game. I still think the developed nations want to get China inside the tent.

[Suraj]

I'm aware that draft is a fairly transparent ruse. Yes, the big hitters will only be in Copenhagen next week, and that includes us (Saran and MMS). There's no need to pretend we're small fry in this summit.

Also, the division between the industrialized developing countries and the less developed, as well as coastal countries (which are more concerned about being inundated), has always been there. Just because they both hang together at UN and WTO summits does not automatically mean they are natural allies at the climate change summit as well. Keep in mind that the G77 is an economic coalition originally created for joint bargaining at UN. That does not translate to having common goals at every forum, particularly a summit like this, so there's no sense in claiming some divide-and-rule policy by the west.

[AnimeshP]

And so it begins ....
Developing countries split over climate measures

A major split between developing countries has emerged at the UN climate talks in Copenhagen, Denmark.
Small island states and poor African nations vulnerable to climate impacts laid out demands for a legally-binding deal tougher than the Kyoto Protocol.
This was opposed by richer developing states such as China, which fear tougher action would curb their growth.
Tuvalu demanded - and got - a suspension of negotiations until the issue could be resolved.
The split within the developing country bloc is highly unusual, as it tends to speak with a united voice.

The call was backed by other members of the Association of Small Island States (AOSIS), including the Cook Islands, Barbados and Fiji, and by some poor African countries including Sierra Leone, Senegal and Cape Verde.

Read it all ...

[Suraj]

And so it begins ....
Developing countries split over climate measures

The split within the developing country bloc is highly unusual, as it tends to speak with a united voice.

They speak with a united voice at economic summits, not climate change ones. There's no natural synergy within the G-77 bloc at Copenhagen, other than a carryover from the collaboration elsewhere. This 'developing countries are being divided' spiel is manufactured FUD.

[putnanja]

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/us-draws-a-red-line-trust-not-enough-need-scrutiny-of-all-action/552369/

The leaked Danish draft with its sweeping set of tough conditions for countries like India underlined the gulf that needs to be traversed here before an agreement can be reached.



That gulf was set to grow after the US today suggested that major developing countries like India and China would have to put their domestic, voluntary action under some sort of international scrutiny.



India has repeatedly rejected this.



Todd Stern, the US Special Envoy on climate change, said that the actions been announced by India and China “would have to be put in an international agreement” to ensure that there was transparency in their efforts.

...

[Pranav]

Video of a lecture by Monckton that nicely exposes the depth of the fraud: http://vimeo.com/8023097

[sumishi]

Cross Posting from "India and the Global Warming Debate"

An article of interest at telegraph.co.uk. The comments following this article on that site are interesting too!!

Climategate: Barack Obama's rule by EPA decree is a coup d'etat against Congress, made in Britain

Climategate: Barack Obama's rule by EPA decree is a coup d'etat against Congress, made in Britain
-- Gerald Warner
-- Gerald Warner is an author, broadcaster, columnist and polemical commentator who writes about politics, religion, history, culture and society in general.

Who needs tanks on the lawn when you have the Environmental Protection Agency? Barack Obama’s use of the EPA to pressurise the Senate to pass his climate change Nuremberg Decrees shows his dictatorial mentality. He wants to override Congress, which is hostile to his climate gobbledegook because it is representative of the American electorate, and sideline the nation’s elected Senators by ruling by decree, courtesy of the EPA. This is a coup d’état.

And what is the justification for this undemocratic action? The allegedly imminent threat from “Anthropogenic Global Warming”. There is always a supposed threat, when tyrants take the stage. The President of the United States has just reduced his moral authority to the level of any Third World dictator heading a “Government of National Emergency”. Fortunately, the world’s leading democracy, which he is trying to subvert, has guarantees of liberty so deeply embedded in its Constitution that US citizens are well placed to fight back.

In the first place, regulation can be challenged in a way that laws cannot. So the EPA’s proposed ruling on so-called “Greenhouse Gases” can be opposed extensively with litigation, to the point that the ruling might not yet be in force when Obama demits office. In the second place, the EPA is funded by Congress. So, if the Agency is being used to bypass or neuter Congress, why should legislators not play hardball and retaliate by cutting off its funding? The EPA may look formidable, but its situation is rather as if Rommel were buying the fuel for his tanks from the Allies.

But what is of compelling interest on this side of the pond is the way in which the bullets to shoot down American democracy were made in Britain. The trail is not hard to follow. When the EPA published its “Endangerment Finding” on greenhouse gases and proposed rule, back in April, almost every paragraph of the text (Federal Register, April 24, 2009, pp 18886-18910) cited as authority the IPCC’s 2007 Report, which the Agency acknowledges it “relies on most heavily”. And whence came the main input on climate change to that report?

Yes, that’s right! You’ve got it: from Phil Jones, Michael Mann and the rest of the lads at the CRU, East Anglia. From the innovative, creative “scientists” who wanted to “beat the crap” out of a climate change sceptic; who “just completed Mike’s Nature trick”; who “can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t”; who deleted e-mails in the interests of science; who tried to prevent publication of dissenters’ views; who coined the historic phrase “hide the decline”.

Those jokers are the main authority for the extravagant claims in the IPCC report and, by extension, for the EPA’s “Endangerment Finding”. That is the authority that is being invoked to overturn the principles of 1776 in the United States. The Protocols of the Elders of Norwich are the justification for EPA tyranny. It is with that weighty evidence at his back that Barack Obama is going to Copenhagen to sell out American taxpayers to Third World subsidy junkies, profiteering “green” corporations and the ever entrepreneurial Al Gore. This is the steal of the millennium: forget the Great Train Robbery and the Brinks Mat caper – these hoodlums are targeting $45 trillion.

Obama hates America and, increasingly, that sentiment is being reciprocated. This is a socialist, World Government putsch. Have the American people the resolution to resist it? We shall soon know.

[sumishi]

Lord Christopher Monckton's report: "Climategate: Caught Green Handed", in the pdf at http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/climategate.html

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CAUGHT GREEN-HANDED!
THE WHISTLE BLOWS FOR TRUTH ............................................................. 3
REVEALED: THE ABJECT CORRUPTION OF CLIMATE SCIENCE ......................... 4
THE NATURE ‘TRICK’ TO ‘HIDE THE DECLINE’ IN TEMPERATURES ................... 5
BREAKING THE BROKEN CODE: DISSECTING THE DODGY DATA .................... 6
MAINSTREAM MEDIA ARE SILENT, BUT THE INTERNET ROARS .................... 10
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION? WHAT FREEDOM? ...................................... 11
WHY THE TRUTH ABOUT TEMPERATURE MATTERS ................................... 15
TERRESTRIAL VS. SATELLITE TEMPERATURE RECORDS ............................... 17
MORE OFFICIAL DISHONESTY ABOUT GLOBAL TEMPERATURE ..................... 23
A NATION TAMPERS WITH ITS TEMPERATURE RECORD .............................. 32
LYING EVEN TO CHILDREN ..................................................................... 35
AL GORE’S TEMPERATURE-RELATED FALSEHOODS ................................... 36
WHAT IS TO BE DONE? .......................................................................... 38
ESSENTIAL READINGS ........................................................................... 40

[arun]

If this is indeed the truth, our Government led by Dr. Manmohan Singh must be reprimanded for this duplicitous behaviour of keeping the nation in the dark:

China, India helped draft 'Danish text,' insider says

A source with deep knowledge of the negotiations says many developing countries knew in advance about the controversial provisions they publicly protested.

By Jim Tankersley

Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
4:03 AM PST, December 10, 2009
Reporting from Copenhagen

In public at least, the early days of the climate summit here have been dominated by developing nations' furor over a proposed "Copenhagen Agreement" that leaked to environmentalists and reporters Tuesday.

But many developing nations -- including China and India -- in fact had a hand in drafting the "Danish text," a source with deep knowledge of the negotiations said today.

Developing countries including China, India, Brazil, Algeria, Ethiopia and Bangladesh had "input into the process and product" of the proposed agreement, the source said.

Representatives of those nations knew about the agreement's most controversial provisions, including commitments for greenhouse gas reductions by developing countries and a reduced role for the United Nations in climate policy, well before the summit began. It was unclear if everyone in the room agreed to every provision. …………………….

L.A. Times

[sumishi]

X Posted.

If this is indeed the truth, our Government led by Dr. Manmohan Singh must be reprimanded for this duplicitous behaviour of keeping the nation in the dark:
...

Very interesting!! But if those phirangis can play the game of climate-gate and what not, this might be a strategically placed article to muddy the waters further and divert attention from their nefarious schemes. Or then, it might be as is said.

Who knows! All these revelations related to international devious plots, hidden agendas and compromised scientific establishments -- one just doesn't know "how deep the rabbit hole goes."

[sumishi]

X Posted from "India and the Global Warming Debate"

Here are some real WEIRD western views on climate change and population!!
And the last one is thought provoking!
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
– Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme

“The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.”
– Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund

“The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil.”
– Sir James Lovelock, BBC Interview

“A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells, the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions.”
– Prof. Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.”
– Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution

“The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”
– emeritus professor Daniel Botkin

“We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis.”
– David Rockefeller, Club of Rome executive manager

“In my view, after fifty years of service in the United National system, I perceive the utmost urgency and absolute necessity for proper Earth government. There is no shadow of a doubt that the present political and economic systems are no longer appropriate and will lead to the end of life evolution on this planet. We must therefore absolutely and urgently look for new ways.”
– Dr. Robert Muller, UN Assistant Secretary General

“Nations are in effect ceding portions of their sovereignty to the international community and beginning to create a new system of international environmental governance as a means of solving otherwise unmanageable crises.”
– Lester Brown, WorldWatch Institute

[Jarita]

Modis speech on climate change.. Is he the only doer we have in India

http://www.youtube.com/user/vandegujara ... Sq_8YotI1U

[abhishek_sharma]

American Climate Envoy’s Good Cop, Bad Cop Roles

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/11/scien ... stern.html

He arrived in Copenhagen on Wednesday, took a quick shower, then called a news conference, where he blasted the Chinese for not doing enough to reduce climate-altering emissions, the Europeans for demanding too much of the United States and the tiniest and poorest nations for demanding “reparations” from rich countries for their part in polluting the planet.

“We absolutely recognize our historic role in putting emissions in the atmosphere up there that are there now,” Mr. Stern said sternly, “but the sense of guilt or culpability or reparations, I just categorically reject that.”

Jairam Ramesh, India’s environment minister and chief climate negotiator, said this week of Mr. Stern, “Obviously India’s stance on climate change is quite different from that of the United States, and there are many things in U.S. policy that I disagree with strongly, but that has not stood in the way of our developing a warm personal rapport.”

Mr. Ramesh recalled taking a long walk with Mr. Stern around a lake in Copenhagen last month during a preliminary meeting to the major climate conference under way there now. The two men engaged in a detailed discussion of a technical but important issue in the climate treaty talks: how to verify that developing countries are meeting their emissions-reductions promises.

The United States is insisting on a fairly intrusive monitoring regime, particularly for those projects that receive international financing. India and other developing countries reject some such measures as infringements of their sovereignty. While they did not come to agreement during their walk, Mr. Ramesh said: “We discussed our differences frankly. He understood me better, I think, and I certainly got a fuller understanding of where he was coming from.”

Mr. Stern said one of his biggest frustrations was the inability of his counterparts to understand the political constraints he must operate under.

“They look at what Congress has already done and say, ‘Can’t you do 10 percent more?’ The answer is no, not really,” Mr. Stern said. “They have learned more about our Congressional system and things like filibuster rules than they probably ever wanted to know.”

[sumishi]

Quote: "Here we see the collectivist mainstream media, not as a reporter of events, but as a major participant"
There is nothing like true news nowadays!!

More than 50 papers join in front-page leader article on climate change

More than 50 papers join in front-page leader article on climate change
Opinion piece to be published in 56 papers across 45 countries – including the Guardian, Le Monde and two Chinese papers
-- Chris Tryhorn, guardian.co.uk, Sunday 6 December 2009 18.48 GMT

The Guardian has teamed up with more than 50 papers worldwide to run the same front-page leader article calling for action at the climate summit in Copenhagen, which begins tomorrow.

This unprecedented project is the result of weeks of negotiations between the papers to agree on a final text, in a process that mirrors the diplomatic wrangling likely to dominate the next 14 days in Copenhagen.

Fifty-six papers in 45 countries published in 20 different languages have joined the initiative, and will feature the leader in some form on their front pages.

Among the titles taking part are two Chinese papers – the Economic Observer and the Southern Metropolitan – and India's second largest English-language paper, The Hindu.

Some of the world's best known papers, such as Le Monde, El Pais, Russia's Novaya Gazeta and the Toronto Star, are also on board.

The leader was the work of team of Guardian writers and editors and went through three drafts to arrive at a text that satisfied all the editors involved.

Alan Rusbridger, editor-in-chief of the Guardian, said: "Newspapers have never done anything like this before but they have never had to cover a story like this before. No individual newspaper editorial could hope to influence the outcome of Copenhagen but I hope the combined voice of 56 major papers speaking in 20 languages will remind the politicians and negotiators gathering there what is at stake – and persuade them to rise above the rivalries and inflexibility that have stood in the way of a deal."

The Guardian deputy editor Ian Katz, who co-ordinated the project, said: "The fact that papers from Moscow to Miami, with such different national and political perspectives, could agree on an editorial should offer some hope that our leaders might be able to do the same. We are bombarded with so much news and comment about climate change that many people are understandably tempted to go back to bed and pull the duvet over their heads – hopefully this improbable alliance will capture people's attention, and perhaps their imagination too."

The leader says that overcoming climate change "will take a triumph of optimism over pessimism, of vision over short-sightedness, of what Abraham Lincoln called 'the better angels of our nature'".

"It is in that spirit that 56 newspapers from around the world have united behind this editorial. If we, with such different national and political perspectives, can agree on what must be done then surely our leaders can, too."
....
Two Australian papers, the Age and the Sydney Morning Herald, pulled out at a late stage after the election of climate change sceptic Tony Abbott as leader of the opposition Liberal party recast the country's debate on green issues.


Peter Cole, head of the journalism department at the University of Sheffield, praised the unprecedented collaboration between newspapers.

"This is a tremendous initiative and a good counter to the idea that nobody notices that the world is falling apart," he said. "If editors from nearly 50 countries all over the world, including all the major countries that contribute so much to global warming, can all agree, then surely the politicians in Copenhagen would be foolish to ignore it."
...
"Science tells us we have no more time, it is now or never. We can't let governments get away with yet another fudge and unfulfilled promises. Speaking with one voice, we will be heard."

N Ram, editor-in-chief and publisher of India's Hindu, added: "This is a splendid initiative, and with some luck and a lot of hard work it should turn out to be a significant media intervention, an example of how we can perform our social responsibility function. The Hindu feels happy and privileged to be part of this initiative and prospective intervention, and we are of course front-paging the global editorial with the impressive logo (the American absences notwithstanding)."

Skip Copenhagen

Skip Copenhagen
--By Deroy Murdock, Wednesday, December 9th, 2009 at 8:19 pm

...
The draft Copenhagen Framework Convention on Climate Change establishes an international oversight body simply called “the government.” As the Convention draft states: “The government will be ruled by the COP [Conference of the Parties],” which will execute “public policies . . . to which the market rules and related dynamics should be subordinate.”

Like most big-government schemes, the Copenhagen Convention unleashes new agencies, panels, and other bureaucracies bearing such acronyms as EBFTA, TPRDA, TPRDM, and UNFCCC. The treaty even invokes “the NAMAs and the NAPAs” — sadly, not a reference to a nearly homonymous ’60s pop group. The Executive Body on Finance and Technology for Mitigation (EBFTM) pursues this riveting mission: “To organize, coordinate, monitor, and evaluate the implementation of the comprehensive framework for mitigation, including the enabling means of financing, technology, and capacity-building.”The Convention arranges the “transfer of technical and financial resources from developed countries to developing countries.” Such international economic redistribution would occur via “a multilateral climate change fund,” “a Mitigation Fund,” “a Capacity-building Fund,” and other schemes. By 2020, these disbursements are supposed to “meet the full costs incurred by developing country Parties” — an anticipated $50 billion to $140 billion.

Regarding revenues, the draft Convention offers options that negotiators will narrow into a final agreement. These include penalties and fines, a 2 percent tax on international financial-market transactions, a global carbon tax from which “the LDCs [Less Developed Countries] shall be exempt,” “an international adaptation levy on airfares, except on journeys originating from or destined to LDCs,” and “mandatory contributions” of 0.5 to 1 percent of GDP. Today, this tax alone would equal $72 billion to $144 billion in brand-new, annual, compulsory U.S. foreign-aid payments.

More maddening, this tax-and-spend treaty is a costly solution to an imaginary problem. So-called “global warming” threatens Earth about as urgently as does the Loch Ness Monster. Like the Oracle at Delphi, computer models of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (essentially the Vatican of so-called “global warming”) issue frightful visions of a boiling planet in the year 2100. Too bad they so inaccurately foresaw Earth’s conditions just before 2010.

Expressing century-long trends, the IPCC has predicted that CO2 concentrations would reach 838 parts per million in the year 2100. In fact, the Science & Public Policy Institute (S&PPI) examined actual meteorological measurements between January 2001 and September 2009 and found CO2 on a glidepath toward just 572 parts per million in the year 2100. Thus, IPCC’s computers say that by century’s end, there will be 46.5 percent more CO2 on Earth than actual climate readings indicated through last September.

Similarly, IPCC models warned that by 2100, Earth’s temperature would increase by 7 degrees Fahrenheit. In fact, S&PPI reports, satellite and surface data between January 1980 and September 2009 point to a long-term warming tendency of just 2.7 degrees F. IPCC prophesies century-end temperatures 160 percent higher than what actual measurements reflected last September.

Climate observations from January 2001 to September 2009 alone demonstrate a cooling trend of 1.98 degrees F by the year 2100, rather than the IPCC’s 7 degrees F of model-inspired “warming.”


global cooling index

“Not one of the U.N.’s models had predicted the long stasis in global temperatures, which have shown no statistically significant trend since 1995 — i.e., for almost 15 years — notwithstanding continuing increases in CO2 concentration,” the Viscount Monckton of Brenchley tells me from London. The S&PPI’s Lord Monckton is a member of the House of Lords and a leading critic of the entire “global warming” charade.

Of course, U.N. computers are no better than the data on which they dine. These data look quite dodgy considering e-mails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), which the Sunday Times of London calls “the world’s leading center for reconstructing past climate and temperatures.” These hacked messages show influential British climatologists and their American counterparts distorting and concealing facts that contradict their faith in so-called “global warming.” Read on:

“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty we can’t.”

“The rest of the [CRU] databases seems [sic] to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. . . . We can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage.”

“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline” in temperatures, Prof. Philip Jones, CRU’s chief, wrote in a Nov. 16, 1999, e-mail to Prof. Michael Mann, director of Penn State University’s Earth System Science Center.

As Jones e-mailed Mann: “If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. . . . We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.”

“We need to cover our behinds on what was done here,” Mann wrote Jones on June 20, 2003.

“Mike, can you delete any e-mails you may have with Keith re: AR4 [IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report]. Keith will do likewise,” Jones wrote Mann on May 29, 2008. “Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.”

Mann wrote back: “I’ll contact Gene about this ASAP.”

“I did get an email from the [Freedom of Information] person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn’t be deleting emails,” Jones wrote on Dec. 10, 2008. Under British law, it is a crime to destroy materials sought in Freedom of Information requests.

CRU still wants scientists to trust its conclusions — on which even more climatology is based — although it now admits that during an office move, it discarded computer tapes and paper records containing years of original weather-station observations. This is like telling an IRS auditor, “Just read my tax return; I chucked my receipts.” Proper science relies on generating reproducible results. Since these climate data now likely are locked in a landfill, CRU’s results are, by definition, irreproducible. This means, ipso facto, they are non-scientific.

Meanwhile, Professor Jones has stepped aside while he and his unit are under investigation. Also, Penn State is probing Professor Mann. “The University is looking into this matter further,” according to a November 30 statement.

In the wake of Climategate, the Met Office (Britain’s equivalent of the U.S. National Weather Service) announced Friday that it would release meteorological observations from 1,000 surface-measurement stations worldwide. It also will analyze 160 years’ worth of raw data to reconstruct the global climate record that has been compromised by CRU’s disposal of data that undergird its conclusions.

The Times of London reports that “the new analysis of the data will take three years, meaning that the Met Office will not be able to state with absolute confidence the extent of the warming trend until the end of 2012.” The Met Office (which relies heavily on CRU’s data), the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies are the three sources for data that flow into the IPCC’s computer models. The Met Office’s announcement constitutes a flat tire on the three-wheel All-Terrain Vehicle that pulls the global-warming issue around the world. And three years will pass until this flat is fixed.

“Although the CRU in Great Britain has been ground zero for the initial investigation because of its role in the IPCC, other national weather centers, universities, and the U.S. global data centers at NOAA and NASA will be shown in upcoming weeks to be complicit in the misrepresentation or manipulation of data to support the supposed consensus,” says Joseph D’Aleo of ICECAP, the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, and the Weather Channel’s first director of meteorology.

Notwithstanding this “maze of skullduggery,” as author Christopher Booker calls Climategate, America’s broadcast networks moved glacially to cover this global-warming scandal. Two weeks after the story emerged, NBC Nightly News finally covered it last Friday. Until then, reports the Media Research Center, ABC, CBS, and NBC ignored Climategate on their morning and nightly news programs. In fact, Comedy Central’s Daily Show with Jon Stewart scooped the three networks by three days with a December 1 segment that presented key facts and generated big laughs. “Why would you throw out raw data from the ’80s?” Stewart incredulously asked. “I still have Penthouses from the ’70s — laminated.”

The Copenhagen Convention codifies world government fueled by fraud, justified by faulty data, and financed with massive, new global taxes. Rather than jet to Denmark to embrace such rubbish, Obama should stay here, toss a log into the Oval Office fireplace, and focus on resuscitating America’s economy.

— Deroy Murdock is a New York-based columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution.

[Jarita]

Modis speech on climate change.. Is he the only doer we have in India

http://www.youtube.com/user/vandegujara ... Sq_8YotI1U

Infact I don't think a leader shld represent a state in the climate summit. Bad idea and communicates divisions. It;s like the governer of California rep. California

[Jarita]

This is great.
Look who benefits from this ...
The money trail

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... f-big-oil/


But who is it that sponsors the Guardian’s Environment pages and eco conferences? Why, only that famous non-fossil-fuel company Shell. (Though I notice their logo no longer appears on top of the Guardian’s eco pages: has the Guardian decided the relationship was just too embarrassing to be, er, sustainable?)

And which company has one of the largest carbon trading desks in London, cashing in on industry currently worth around $120 billion – an industry which could not possibly exist without pan-global governmental CO2 emissions laws ? BP (which stands for British Petroleum)

And how much has Indian steel king Lakshmi Mittal made from carbon credits thanks to Europe’s Emissions Trading Scheme? £1 billion.

And which companies were the CRU scientists revealed cosying up to as early as 2000 in the Climategate emails? There’s a clue in this line here: “Had a very good meeting with Shell yesterday.”

And how much was Phil Jones, director of the discredited CRU, found to have collected in grants since 1990? £13.7 million ($22.7 million)

And why does this Executive Vice-Chairman of Rothschild’s bank sound so enthusiastic in this (frankly terrifying) letter about the prospects of the “new world order” (his phrase not mine) which result from globally regulated carbon trading?

Or why not try this blog, in which a German Green party MP is revealed being given hefty donations by a solar power company?

Or how about this tiny $7o million donation to the climate change industry from the Rockefeller Foundation?

And what about the £6 million the UK Government squandered on its climate-fear-promoting Bedtime Stories ad campaign?

What about the billions of dollars Al Gore stands to make from his ManBearPig scam?

I could go on. Many of Monbiot’s readers already have below his blog, most of them ridiculing the absurdity and hypocrisy of his position. Here’s one:

Who is the bigger stooge, the unwitting recruit of the “hugely powerful oil lobby” or the one blindly willing to spend millions of billions on AGW plans for which no one has the slightest idea of whether they will work?

I couldn’t agree more. The other day, following our debate, Monbiot gloated that debating me was like “shooting rats in a bucket.” Is that so? Well I’d say that trying to argue with someone who plays as fast and loose with the truth as George Monbiot is like trying to wrestle an electric eel smeared with KY jelly.

[enqyoob]

The big winner from Copenhagen is the PRC, which went in as Feared Emitter #2 Power and comes away as the only SuperPower that Leads the Free World Against Imperialist Bullies.

[sumishi]

The big winner from Copenhagen is the PRC, which went in as Feared Emitter #2 Power and comes away as the only SuperPower that Leads the Free World Against Imperialist Bullies.

That's how it appears! I read somewhere that Chini's one-child norm was funded by the Rockefeller foundation (The truth about how they went about implementing it can raise hackles!). And now "Chini" Daily promotes that norm on a global scale in the article: Population control called key to deal.

It has been oft-times reported that the mulitbillionaires/trillionaires Rockefellers (and the Rothschilds) have had links with the eugenics program of depopulation since long back. With money like that (our capitalist head honchos are like paanwaalas compared to them), what can they not influence (including mainstream media)? With influence like that, they are "beyond the law," as law can be bought. Financial families like these in Europe have funded both sides of the wars. If they believe in eugenics, and the related Malthusian principles of both positive checks (hunger, disease and war) and preventative checks (abortion, birth control, postponement of marriage) for population control (which reportedly they do), then they are right on target. So what's with this Chini article?

No nation is our friend. Its every nation to itself, with the hope that the upper echelons of power are not infiltrated or influenced, or are led unknowingly down the wrong path because more than 99% of the junta goes about their daily business and lives with their "EYES WIDE SHUT." Can't put all the blame on the junta since life has become so complex and fast that they have precious little time left after working their arse off. However, whatever little time they have is frittered way on useless things like reality shows, glamour/celebrity world watching, hour long discussions on politically incorrect tweets -- basically what the media feeds them and dumbs them down with.

[Neshant]

Woah.

The emails of those professors down at University of East Anglia is incriminating.

Their reputation is gone. But I'm sure just like Moody's and Standard & Poor's who rated tons of garbage as AAA securities, they will just go on operating as if nothing happened.

[sumishi]

Woah.

The emails of those professors down at University of East Anglia is incriminating.

Their reputation is gone. But I'm sure just like Moody's and Standard & Poor's who rated tons of garbage as AAA securities, they will just go on operating as if nothing happened.

Yes that's true, and it is because of the people at large. The public has a very short term memory, easily diverted by diversionary tactics, and the bad guys have known that throughout history. That is why it becomes possible for them to push through or continue with their plots/agendas/whatever incrementally over a long duration.

Because of our experience with the government/politicians since independence, we already have healthy suspicions on their plans, actions and deeds -- this is more so at the village level. What we need is a healthy suspicion on the forces influencing media reporting.

Climategate is hardly covered in the mainstream newspapers in India, why? Probably because they have sold themselves so much on the climate-warming line that they are confused/scared to write on climategate and its wider implications. I hardly ever watch TV news channels - what is the situation there? Must be discussing Tiger Wood's flirtatious history, and the Khan wars.

[enqyoob]

This presentation should be mandatory reading on this thread: A very clear and succinct presentation on the background and the issues, from an African perspective.

Is there any Indian presentation that presents Indian pov in a similar manner? If so, please post. thx.

[bart]

x-posting from UK thread:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colu ... edcar.html

Looks like a lot of Paki traits like conspiracy theories and blaming others for their own ills have rubbed off on the Brits after a lot of 'close' associations.

Wasn't Rajendra Pachauri a very vocal opponent of Tata Motors wrt Singur and the Nano? A lot of other stuff in that article are blatant lies, like the plant allegedly being built in Holland, and that Tata needs environmental credits to be in business (the closed plant has 6 million pounds in carbon credits annually, which is literally peanuts compared to the 70 billion $ revenues of the Tata group, the 130 million pound loss incurred by Tata to keep that plant running over the past one year, and the profit that it could make if it could somehow keep that plant open).

[sumishi]

X-posting from "India and the Global Warming Debate"

I Pledge Allegiance to Global Warming

I Pledge Allegiance to Global Warming
British scientists sign a government loyalty oath.

The Met Office, Britain's national weather service, "has embarked on an urgent exercise to bolster the reputation of climate-change science" in the wake of a whistle-blower's revelation of widespread misconduct by climate scientists, London's Times reports:

More than 1,700 scientists have agreed to sign a statement defending the "professional integrity" of global warming research. They were responding to a round-robin request from the Met Office, which has spent four days collecting signatures. . . .

One scientist told The Times he felt under pressure to sign. "The Met Office is a major employer of scientists and has long had a policy of only appointing and working with those who subscribe to their views on man-made global warming," he said.

The concept of scientists--or journalists, or artists--signing a petition is ludicrous. The idea is that they are lending their authority to whatever cause the petition represents--but in fact they are undermining that authority, which is based on the presumption that they think for themselves.

The problem with the petition as a form is also a problem with the Met Office petition's substance. The purpose of the petition is to shore up scientists' authority by vouching for their integrity. But signing a loyalty oath under pressure from the government is itself a corrupt act. Anyone who signs this petition thereby raises doubts about his own integrity. And once again, the question arises: Why should any layman regard global warmism as credible when the "consensus" rests on political machinations, statistical tricks and efforts to suppress alternative hypotheses?

To be sure, Joseph McCarthy was right about communism even though the ways he combated it were wrong and counterproductive. But that's all the more reason that honest scientists who view global warmism as credible--if such creatures exist--should rise up against these McCarthyite tactics.

...

[shravan]

Climate talks collapse; India, China, Africa walk out

Talks at the Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen broke down on Monday over disagreements on carbon emission cuts.

The disagreements led walkouts by India, China, African nations and Australia.

Trouble started when the African delegation asked Australia and other countries to spell out targets on emission cuts. Following this, the Australians staged a walkout.

As the disagreements continued, a call was made for suspension of talks and the African nations, India and China too joined the walkout.

[sumishi]

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

[sumishi]

Crash course on how to divert/muzzle inconvenient questions!!
They don't like the truth on tape!

An Inconvenient Question - Journalist Phelim McAleer Asks Prof. Stephen Schneider

Inconvenient Question to Al Gore

[Suraj]

China, India deliberate Danish draft

“The Danish text does exist and we have information that the rich countries are going to go public with it,” China’s chief climate envoy Xie Zhenhua told environment minister Jairam Ramesh today at a closed-door meeting, to which Business Standard had exclusive access.

The Chinese envoy, who is also a Vice Chairman of China’s all-powerful National Development and Reform Commission, further told Ramesh that he had got information that Australia and the EU were planning to launch a surprise attack either late Tuesday evening or early Wednesday.

Ramesh, talking about the closeness between India and China at the negotiations, said the two sides were meeting up to six times a day.

Today’s meeting took place at Bella Centre, the venue for the COP15 talks, early afternoon and was called on the behest of the Chinese. It underscores the urgency with which BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) countries are preparing to meet an expected last-minute effort by the industrialised countries to impose a version of the so-called Danish text on them.

XIE ADDED, “When they present it (the Danish text), we (China and India) must respond to it in a united way and must get all the G77 to stand united in opposition because, if the developing world shows cracks, it will allow the developed countries to shift the responsibility onto the developing nations, which is what they are planning.”

Xie expressed concerns that the Aosis (small island nations) countries were already leaning towards the Danish text, which sought to impose emission reduction targets on the emerging economies as well as the industrialised countries.

The Chinese envoy also revealed that a small ministerial meeting was to be held on Tuesday evening by the EU and Australia where heads of states who had already arrived in Copenhagen, such as Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd would be asked to lobby other countries to endorse the idea of a single treaty to replace rather than extend the Kyoto Protocol.Ramesh assured the Chinese leader that India was with BASIC in every way and would “reject any effort to close the two drafts currently being discussed”.

He suggested that the Basic countries make a public announcement to the effect that they would “not accept any text that is not UN Party driven”.

Jairam Ramesh drives opposition to emissions cuts

Although developing countries, including India, have been insisting that negotiating is not the business of heads of state and government, it increasingly looks like a political push will be needed from world leaders if the talks are not to end in failure.

India’s priority is to ensure the concept of a peaking year for global emissions applicable to developing countries does not make it into any final version of the draft accords currently being negotiated, environment minister Jairam Ramesh told Business Standard on Tuesday.

“For me, fighting the idea of a peaking year is the single biggest priority and it’s what I am expending all my political capital on right now,” he said.

Industrialised countries have also been pushing for the current talks to end in a single political agreement that would lay the foundations of a new protocol to replace Kyoto, one placing more stringent requirements on the big developing countries.

Ramesh said he had been assured by Danish environment minister Connie Hedegaard that it was the two UN texts that would in fact be signed at the end of the week, one on the continuation of the Kyoto protocol and the second on long-term cooperative action, to run along side Kyoto as a means of bringing the notoriously recalcitrant US on board.

However, there is widespread suspicion in the Basic (Brazil, South Africa, India, China) camp that the EU and Australia will reintroduce the notorious Danish proposal that seeks to undo the differential responsibilities assigned to developing and developed countries under the Kyoto protocol.

As a result, while India is currently focusing on the two UN draft texts, Ramesh added that Basic countries also have their own draft “up their sleeves in case of a googly bowled by the Danes or Europeans at the last minute”.

Several seemingly intractable issues still remained before the two draft proposals could be presented to top political leaders. Ramesh said the greatest sticking point was, at the moment, on the issue of MRVs (monitoring, reporting and verification) for the domestic commitments that developing countries have been making to reduce their energy intensity.

“The EU and US are really digging in their heels on the whole MRV issue, particularly with respect to China. India is not really in the firing line,” Ramesh explained. The US has been insisting that the lack of stringent verification of China’s climate mitigation actions could be a deal-breaker.

Beijing, which like India rejects international verification of its nationally announced mitigation measures, attacked rich countries on Tuesday, accusing them of backsliding on their obligations.

Jiang Yu, a foreign ministry spokesperson in Beijing, said there had been “some regression” on the part of developed countries on their position regarding financial support. The change in their position “will hamper the Copenhagen conference”, the spokesperson said.

The current situation is:
* The Chinese are the ones facing most pressure, due to their being the primary target of the external monitoring scheme. India too is opposed to it. It explains their collaborating with India and rest of BASIC.
* The US (and to a lesser extent the EU) refuses to bankroll developing countries' climate change efforts, and particularly singles out China as an example, claiming they need no help.
* The AOSIS (island nations coalition, who fear being deluged by the sea) is vacillating as to whether to stick with G-77 or respond to the developed countries' wooing efforts.

My take is that this summit is headed nowhere, particularly because the Chinese are being targeted.

[Mort Walker]

Ombaba & MMS are to arrive in Copenhagen on Friday, so here's the push on MMS to sign on to actual emission cuts:

Black Soot and the Survival of Tibetan Glaciers : Image of the Day http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/v ... rc=iotdssi
NASA - New Study Turns Up the Heat on Soot's Role in Himalayan Warming http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/featur ... rming.html
NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Survival of Tibetan Glaciers http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_14/
NASA - Soot is Key Player in Himalayan Warming; Looming Water Woes in Asia http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/featur ... -soot.html

The best way to solve this is to get more nuclear power, but wait the CTBT and NPT must be signed first. So, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

[amol.p]

The Green Hypocrites: Prince Charles and Gordon Brown take separate jets... to lecture the world on global warming....

Prince Charles and Gordon Brown were accused last night of ‘green hypocrisy’ after jetting into Copenhagen to lecture the world about global warming.
Charles used the £1,019-an-hour Queen’s Flight so he could deliver a keynote speech to the climate change conference, flying back after less than three hours.
The Prime Minister chartered a 185-seat Airbus to take him and 20 aides to Denmark for their four-day trip.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z0Zw7lA1m5

[Gerard]

New climate deal may have to wait

The Danish presidency of the climate summit in Copenhagen has sought to play down expectations of a comprehensive deal emerging from the meeting. Officials said progress could be made, but an international agreement may have to wait until a 2010 meeting in Mexico.

[sumishi]

Great!
All the more time to expose the international bankers' driven scam and their "New World Order" and their "global governance" and their "global management of the planet"!

[chetak]

At least the conscientious loader tried to prevent another possible sellout

As we speak, old ramesh is already in his " deal making not deal breaking " mode.

http://news.rediff.com/report/2009/dec/ ... -plane.htm

PM's plane hit by luggage van, to use stand-by
December 17, 2009 17:30 IST

Quote

Hours before the prime minister's departure for Copenhagen, a cargo van brushed against the PM's special aircraft, Air India One, causing a dent. Sources said the PM was not in the aircraft when the incident took place.......

According to reports, the aircraft was hit by a trolley, which was loading food items into it.

Addressing the media at the technical area from where the aircraft was supposed to take off, Patel said: "The aircraft was slightly damaged by a loader that required the aircraft to be withdrawn, and get in a stand-by aircraft immediately."

"We have suspended the loader. He was not new to the job, so we are trying to find out whether any mala fide intent," he added.

[sumishi]

Well, well, well !! Is the fog beginning to lift?
Rep. Rohrabacher's speech in the US House

[Pranav]

Final Copenhagen Text Includes Global Transaction Tax

The final Copenhagen draft agreement which was hammered out in the early hours of Friday morning includes provisions for a global tax on financial transactions that will be paid directly to the World Bank, as President Obama prepares to bypass Congress by approving a massive transfer of wealth from America into globalist hands.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/final-copen ... n-tax.html

[Suraj]

MMS hits the right notes at Copenhagen:
PM sticks to Kyoto Protocol

With no signs of a possible deal at the climate summit in the Danish capital, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh today made it clear that future negotiations on tackling the menace should be based on equitable burden sharing as enshrined in Kyoto Protocol and Bali mandate.

He set the tone for India’s take on the outcome of COP15 negotiations in his speech on Friday’s plenary session by acknowledging that “it may well fall short of our expectations” and warned against any dilution of the principles of UNFCCC, particularly of “common but differentiated” responsibilities.

Prior to speaking at the plenary, Singh held a bilateral meeting with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao followed by a meeting with the leaders of all BASIC countries. “Future negotiations must continue on the basis of 1997 Kyoto Protocol and 2007 Bali Action Plan and parties (rich nations) should deliver on their commitments for emission cuts. Kyoto Protocol should continue to stand as a valid legal instrument,” Singh said.

At a press briefing, Singh’s special envoy for climate change Shyam Saran raised the issue that plagued the two-week negotiations — the existence of drafts for the political accord that world leaders would be expected to endorse, which all parties to the talks are not privy to.

Saran said at the meeting of the BASIC countries there was a sense that proceedings had not transpired in a “transparent and inclusive” way. The fear remained that the final political agreement to be given to the heads of state and government would be readied too late in the day for negotiating teams to go through and endorse.

Saran said it remained India’s stance to fight any attempt to replace the Kyoto Protocol with the kind of pledge and review system being proposed by the US.

Meanwhile, in the afternoon Obama reiterated the United States’ pledge to cut down carbon emissions in the range of 17 per cent by 2020 over 2005 levels only in addition to repeating Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s announcement yesterday on US support for $100 billion fund for medium-term financing.

He linked all promises to international MRVs (monitoring, reporting and verification), saying that without verification any promises would be empty.

Touching upon a key point of differences between developed nations and developing countries like China and India, he said all major economies should allow non-intrusive outside scrutiny of climate action and warned that there will be no aid that “had no strings” attached.

Wen Jiabao categorically rejected MRVs of voluntary, domestic mitigation actions, while stressing that China’s own energy intensity reduction targets of 40-45 per cent by 2020 were “not attached to any condition” and “not linked to any targets”.

This was a reference to the positions of many of the developed country blocs such as the European Union that put conditional emission reduction targets on the table as well as the US’ linking of its participation in the medium-term financing fund to “transparency”.

Obama and Wen also met for 55 minutes on the sidelines and discussed the contentious issues blocking a deal. An official said the session was “constructive” and “made progress”.