Bharat Rakshak

This hacking expose is worrisome. Why on earth would they have to fabricate stuff when there is enough evidence? Mauritius is sinking after all.

Jarita wrote:This hacking expose is worrisome. Why on earth would they have to fabricate stuff when there is enough evidence? Mauritius is sinking after all.

It's more about whether it's human-caused or natural than whether it's occurring or not. Although this unexplained 10 year cooling is changing that dynamic, at least outside scientific circles.

if the wind blows, its climate change

if the wind does not blow, its also climate change.

climate change = protectionist ploy.

that's why it was renamed from global warming to climate change just in case the data does not fit the warming claim.

Climate change due to human impact is a reality. What it will maifest as in the interim cannot be predicted - many warm/ cold streams are being impacted so reversal of climate might happen.
The fact of the matter is that THEY (I refuse to use the word WE) have created a significant imbalance on the planet by unlocking carbon repositories on the planet (fossil fuels - there are other sources to but let us stick tothis) without creating a sinkhole for the repositories (trees etc). Infact they have aggressively denuded the carbon repositories across continents (witness the deforestation in the last century across the AMericas, Europe, Africa etc). All these locked repositories are now in the atmosphere.
The big thing that irks me is that we are being asked to pay for the rampant destruction the west has caused over the last century in their quest for overconsumption. They want us to starve to pay for their lifestyles. How is this different from the Bengal famine and all other phase of induced human tragedy? We are sub humans to these people which is why the climate treaty is being the structured the way it it is.
But hey as the first line of this song says
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKu2QaytmrM

About the hacking of emails on climate changing scientists.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1258834 ... TopStories

Oh dear. A rather revealing list of leaked emails from the Climate Research Unit from the University of East Anglia - a globally renowned centre for the publication of climate change stuff. Still regard this as completely true?

Let's lie and get the sceptics

The reality is that given the CRU boasts it has the most complete temperature record set in the world, and that endless models are based upon it, rational people should be EXTREMELY sceptical about just about every single claim that is based upon the work of acknowledged liars.

Clearly, the timing is a little too coincidental, with the Copenhagen summit coming up.

It seems that UEA's Climate Change Unit is going to suffer a major blow to its reputation, if these emails discussing how to fake data are true.


Here's Hollyweird Left-Coaster Ed Begley sparring away with a Fox News interviewer:

This french a-hole is trying to push India into the bogus climate change agenda. Note the eagerness to close the trap and make it officially binding.

Its nothing more than protectionism.

Don't commit to anything other than keeping emissions lower per capita than the developed world. Any other kind of cleverness will only result in disaster.

----------------
India to reveal climate change goals soon: Sarkozy

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/091127/w ... ance_india

FT comment on the email scandal:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/48e14e6c-dba0 ... abdc0.html

WSJ comment on the email scandal:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 48494.html

The good doctor's turn to stab SDREs in the back ..

Dr. Singh declared that "India is willing to sign on to an ambitious global target for emissions reductions or limiting temperature increase ..."

http://beta.thehindu.com/news/internati ... epage=true

This is a fine demonstration of the power of the so-called "Atlanticists" or Oligarchs - Everybody knows that this global warming tamasha is 400% garbage - yet not even the mighty Chinese are able to plainly say that the emperor is wearing no clothes. So what hope can be there for anything from Sonia's man Friday?

Cooling in the neighbourhood of the USA can come from a slowing down of the North Atlantic portion of the Gulf Stream. Whatever be the reality of "climate change", there are indeed funny things happening in the medium term temperature/precipitation/wind factors in the North Atlantic. "Warming" and "cooling" are very closely linked.

There are two major problems with current CM's.
(a) no real tests/validation about robustness with respect to changing scale of the grids. (In fact it is also difficult - as the smaller scales will show more random fluctuations)
(b) Lack of incorporation of stochastic components in the fluid-dynamical models. Noise induced regime changes in the stochastic versions of the corresponding differential equations can be an added angle not built in so far in the woprking models to my knowledge.

Both these factors contribute to systems which can absorb changes and stay flat for certain ranges of the climatic variables, but fluctuations of a higher order can switch the whole system into another mode almost instantaneously.

Rest assured if it comes to the tipping point, Europe and USA will suffer horribly - they will literally freeze as a result of "warming". India and China can suffer from drying up or aridity. In fact one of the long term cyclical tendencies of droughts and drying up in the East Asian Monsoon has already begun in China for the 1930's. The full force of such mega droughts take around a century to manifest fully and can stay upto 200 years.

brihaspati wrote:Cooling in the neighbourhood of the USA can come from a slowing down of the North Atlantic portion of the Gulf Stream. Whatever be the reality of "climate change", there are indeed funny things happening in the medium term temperature/precipitation/wind factors in the North Atlantic. "Warming" and "cooling" are very closely linked.

B ji, the main idea behind this global warming fad is to hobble economic growth throughout the world. The primary objective of the oligarchs is to maintain total economic and political supremacy for themselves.

The fact that they are being taken so seriously, despite the zero-credibility science, demonstrates the grip which they exert over politicians around the world.

I may not be in continuity with this thread.

I would like to present a case to combine both poverty, environment and global warming.

Indian government should employ large number of people to plant trees. If people preserve and protect the trees eveymonth they needs to paid a small amount, besides water supply and other things for the tree. So that tree growing will help on the one hand to support those who are below poverty in waste lands or in land areas which are not used by the government and also maintain the circular process.

This will stop them cutting down the tree and enable them to earn out of it.

Posting in full due to importance:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colu ... ation.html

Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climategate whitewash, says Christopher Booker


By Christopher Booker
Published: 6:10PM GMT 28 Nov 2009


A week after my colleague James Delingpole, on his Telegraph blog, coined the term "Climategate" to describe the scandal revealed by the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, Google was showing that the word now appears across the internet more than nine million times. But in all these acres of electronic coverage, one hugely relevant point about these thousands of documents has largely been missed.

The reason why even the Guardian's George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Professor Philip Jones, the CRU's director, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. Through its link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects most of the IPCC's key scientific contributors, his global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely – not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it.

Dr Jones is also a key part of the closely knit group of American and British scientists responsible for promoting that picture of world temperatures conveyed by Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph which 10 years ago turned climate history on its head by showing that, after 1,000 years of decline, global temperatures have recently shot up to their highest level in recorded history.

Given star billing by the IPCC, not least for the way it appeared to eliminate the long-accepted Mediaeval Warm Period when temperatures were higher they are today, the graph became the central icon of the entire man-made global warming movement.

Since 2003, however, when the statistical methods used to create the "hockey stick" were first exposed as fundamentally flawed by an expert Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre, an increasingly heated battle has been raging between Mann's supporters, calling themselves "the Hockey Team", and McIntyre and his own allies, as they have ever more devastatingly called into question the entire statistical basis on which the IPCC and CRU construct their case.

The senders and recipients of the leaked CRU emails constitute a cast list of the IPCC's scientific elite, including not just the "Hockey Team", such as Dr Mann himself, Dr Jones and his CRU colleague Keith Briffa, but Ben Santer, responsible for a highly controversial rewriting of key passages in the IPCC's 1995 report; Kevin Trenberth, who similarly controversially pushed the IPCC into scaremongering over hurricane activity; and Gavin Schmidt, right-hand man to Al Gore's ally Dr James Hansen, whose own GISS record of surface temperature data is second in importance only to that of the CRU itself.

There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world. Perhaps the most obvious, as lucidly put together by Willis Eschenbach (see McIntyre's blog Climate Audit and Anthony Watt's blog Watts Up With That), is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws.

They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based.

This in itself has become a major scandal, not least Dr Jones's refusal to release the basic data from which the CRU derives its hugely influential temperature record, which culminated last summer in his startling claim that much of the data from all over the world had simply got "lost". Most incriminating of all are the emails in which scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request, is a criminal offence.

But the question which inevitably arises from this systematic refusal to release their data is – what is it that these scientists seem so anxious to hide? The second and most shocking revelation of the leaked documents is how they show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction – to lower past temperatures and to "adjust" recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming. This comes up so often (not least in the documents relating to computer data in the Harry Read Me file) that it becomes the most disturbing single element of the entire story. This is what Mr McIntyre caught Dr Hansen doing with his GISS temperature record last year (after which Hansen was forced to revise his record), and two further shocking examples have now come to light from Australia and New Zealand.

In each of these countries it has been possible for local scientists to compare the official temperature record with the original data on which it was supposedly based. In each case it is clear that the same trick has been played – to turn an essentially flat temperature chart into a graph which shows temperatures steadily rising. And in each case this manipulation was carried out under the influence of the CRU.

What is tragically evident from the Harry Read Me file is the picture it gives of the CRU scientists hopelessly at sea with the complex computer programmes they had devised to contort their data in the approved direction, more than once expressing their own desperation at how difficult it was to get the desired results.

The third shocking revelation of these documents is the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods – not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics' work. It seems they are prepared to stop at nothing to stifle scientific debate in this way, not least by ensuring that no dissenting research should find its way into the pages of IPCC reports.

Back in 2006, when the eminent US statistician Professor Edward Wegman produced an expert report for the US Congress vindicating Steve McIntyre's demolition of the "hockey stick", he excoriated the way in which this same "tightly knit group" of academics seemed only too keen to collaborate with each other and to "peer review" each other's papers in order to dominate the findings of those IPCC reports on which much of the future of the US and world economy may hang. In light of the latest revelations, it now seems even more evident that these men have been failing to uphold those principles which lie at the heart of genuine scientific enquiry and debate. Already one respected US climate scientist, Dr Eduardo Zorita, has called for Dr Mann and Dr Jones to be barred from any further participation in the IPCC. Even our own George Monbiot, horrified at finding how he has been betrayed by the supposed experts he has been revering and citing for so long, has called for Dr Jones to step down as head of the CRU.

The former Chancellor Lord (Nigel) Lawson, last week launching his new think tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, rightly called for a proper independent inquiry into the maze of skulduggery revealed by the CRU leaks. But the inquiry mooted on Friday, possibly to be chaired by Lord Rees, President of the Royal Society – itself long a shameless propagandist for the warmist cause – is far from being what Lord Lawson had in mind. Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with a whitewash of what has become the greatest scientific scandal of our age.

Christopher Booker's The Real Global Warming Disaster: Is the Obsession with 'Climate Change' Turning Out to be the Most Costly Scientific Blunder in History? (Continuum, £16.99) is available from Telegraph Books for £14.99 plus £1.25 p & p.

The great climate change science scandal
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... 936289.ece

This weekend it emerged that the unit has thrown away much of the data. Tucked away on its website is this statement: “Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites ... We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (ie, quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

If true, it is extraordinary. It means that the data on which a large part of the world’s understanding of climate change is based can never be revisited or checked. Pielke said: “Can this be serious? It is now impossible to create a new temperature index from scratch. [The unit] is basically saying, ‘Trust us’.”

India shouldn't commit it self emission cuts, this is biggest unfairness. If they commit even for 0.1 percent it is nothing but shooting it self on the leg. As a matured country India. know it self require to develop alternative resource not for climate change. By developing alternative energy we could “energy independence”

A simple condition India can only sign if America looses its all gas guzzling 4x4 MILF auto mobiles.

Almost all the CM's that I know (and some I have worked with) suffere from serious limitations of computability in the scales required to do simulations having real predictive value. The climscits (Climate scientists) also mostly are not probabilists or statisticians. They are mostly derived from exact "fluid mechanics" modellers who have trained to deal exclusively with exact pde's. Adding stochastoc components to these pde's is a horrendously nightmarish scenario for any probabilist. But such small-scale fluctuations are important and the whole scene could radically change with different unstable and stable zones compared to what are being projected today.

In the real world most workable predictive models are short term ones - and are semi-empirical.

I have studied and tracked various climate variables over two spatial zones for a decade now. And compared with historical snapshots. In our own small academic community, which is more mathematical compared to applied scientists involved in climate research, I belong to the minority position that (a) fluctuations are increasing although average trends are still practically constant (b) there is a slight cooling around the North Atlantic, although precipitation patterns show no statistically significant change point yet - while there are reasons to suspect that fluctuation scales are changing.

I personally have an interest in comparing long period historical known geological record based climate cycles. This makes me feel that an overall cooling trend has already set in, leading to a high point somewhere in the late 2100-2200. These are accompanied by corresponding drying of large parts of South and East Asia , as the Monsoon typically weakens. The CO2 effects I am not so sure of as far as statitical tests are concerned. Even if they are, they are probably no match for the longer period cycles perhaps involving changes in orbital and solar activity.

The current "warming" debate if motivated purely economically is really a self-goal. By suppressing or slowing down the the two powerhouses China and India, the Europeans cannot benefit and ultimately will suffer. It is more about "western"economies themselves. They need to cut back on consumption levels and living standards which they can no longer sustain - and a climate disaster is one way of convincing the public of the necessity of such cutbacks. Otherwise the political consequences are simply mindblowing.

Europeans have an extremely strong sense of guilt and they try their best not to feel guilty by shifting the blame on others if possible. The whole climate disaster is a great tool for both western societies as well as their political elite. On the one hand the elite can get the public to accept cutbacks in consumption patterns without paying political price. On the other hand the society can also be at ease if the blame for disaster can be portioned off on the "usual suspects" - the supposedly racially and religiously "backward/dark/evil/inferior".

Would like to know if there has been any cost-benefit analysis to the global warming and climate change debate. More specifically keeping in mind that rapid increase in green house gases in the atmosphere is a reality for the past century, and if we choose to do nothing about it, what is the hedge against that decision turning out to be false.

France wants a 'carbon tax' on EU imports

NEW DELHI/PARIS: In a dampener for India, the French government is set to insist that the European Union impose a carbon tax on imports from countries such as India which are supposed to have ``low environmental standards''.

EU is India's single-largest trading partner, accounting for over 20% of its exports, and New Delhi has already made it clear that any such measure would be another form of protectionism, something India has been actively campaigning against ahead of climate talks in Copenhagen.

A highly-placed official of the French government told TOI in Paris that there was a consensus emerging in EU for such a tax even though he hastened to add that the move was not directed at India. ``India is doing its bit and it is represented by tough negotiators who have sounded convincing in explaining India's stand,'' the official said.

However, the fact is that France and EU want carbon tax as a punitive and fallback option for countries which show no concern for the climate change issue, said the official who is also associated with the functioning of the French mission in Brussels.

While the official sought to allay India's fears over such a move, the fact is that French President Nicolas Sarkozy has been insisting domestically that countries have to respect the "rules of carbon emission reduction to be able to export to France", the driving force behind EU. He has found powerful supporters in Germany and Italy.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 282146.cms

This was in my todo list for a while so I took time to read all of the 8 pages of this thread. Good discussion and good posts by several folks...Thanks!

I also have a request that people should stop calling other people/officials back stabber, nation seller etc. Your opinion is as valuable as other people's. You could be as right as you could be wrong on the issue. You are sitting at home/office lobbying for India on a free forum while some people have difficult job of negotiating and making a deal on a very complicated and dicy issue which would impact life of billions of folks. A little bit of patience and respect for others would carry discussion here much further. Don't forget the nuclear sizzle/fizzle thread and what happened there.......

The UN and its global stooges like the World bank are using this global warming hoax to make money through credits and tax schemes from all over the world. They fudge data to meet their ends. Hell, isn't there one organisation launched by Al Gore which will be heavily involved in collecting carbon tax? And he is such a big advocate of carbon tax!
It is the old colonial style devious tactics all over again, masquerading as the "anglo-american" new world order.

Most of the NDTV/IBN watching desis are disappointed that India has decided to skip Copenhagan.
Amazed at their sheer dumbness

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... n-nonsense

Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense
Evidence for human interference with Earth's climate continues to accumulate
By John Rennie

Within the community of scientists and others concerned about anthropogenic climate change, those whom Inhofe calls skeptics are more commonly termed contrarians, naysayers and denialists. Not everyone who questions climate change science fits that description, of course—some people are genuinely unaware of the facts or honestly disagree about their interpretation. What distinguishes the true naysayers is an unwavering dedication to denying the need for action on the problem, often with weak and long-disproved arguments about supposed weaknesses in the science behind global warming.

Katare wrote:This was in my todo list for a while so I took time to read all of the 8 pages of this thread. Good discussion and good posts by several folks...Thanks!

I also have a request that people should stop calling other people/officials back stabber, nation seller etc. Your opinion is as valuable as other people's. You could be as right as you could be wrong on the issue. You are sitting at home/office lobbying for India on a free forum while some people have difficult job of negotiating and making a deal on a very complicated and dicy issue which would impact life of billions of folks. A little bit of patience and respect for others would carry discussion here much further. Don't forget the nuclear sizzle/fizzle thread and what happened there.......

Plus one. No name calling please, particularly from forumites who are not in the negotiating seats themselves but are indulging in stone throwing as if we are on a village panchayat.

Anyway, please read this interview, it makes sense when one thinks it over.

http://business.rediff.com/slide-show/2 ... ramesh.htm

India can be prosperous without polluting and also can be on a higher moral while generating jobs. Imagine an LED bulb manufacturing facility. Cheaper and longer lasting lights for a bargain. Helps the poor.

arnab wrote:http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... n-nonsense

Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense
Evidence for human interference with Earth's climate continues to accumulate
By John Rennie

Within the community of scientists and others concerned about anthropogenic climate change, those whom Inhofe calls skeptics are more commonly termed contrarians, naysayers and denialists. Not everyone who questions climate change science fits that description, of course—some people are genuinely unaware of the facts or honestly disagree about their interpretation. What distinguishes the true naysayers is an unwavering dedication to denying the need for action on the problem, often with weak and long-disproved arguments about supposed weaknesses in the science behind global warming.

The comments therein are also very interesting!

Jeez! If this Climategate scandal turns out to have bits of truth in it, it throws to the winds all credibility we assign to these international scientific jounals/magazines and their "peer-reviewed" crap!! It seems every organisation has an agenda linked to some other agenda!

India has to come on her own terms to stop the emission of carbon into the air. Particularly there should be a clear elimination policy of all the big vehicles which are more than 20 years old out of the road. I hear that there is a good practice of emission test but now it is essential to get rid of some of the cars.

It is also essential that big industries have now carbon cap on their emissions. THey should be asked to cut it completely.

There should be a good result oriented research centres for developing technology to reduce carbon emission.

Government should invest in the planting of trees and plantations wherever the land is free. For this water dams should be build in many places.

Here's something to mull over!
Lord Christopher Monckton's report: "Climategate: Caught Green Handed", in the pdf at the following url --
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/origi ... egate.html

X-post

ramana wrote:Pachauri advises MMS to attend Copenhagen.

Do attend Copenhagen

Guy gets a medal for his society (not himself) with Gore and thinks he can pressure GOI!
Talk of RNI.

MMS will do what he needs to do on climate change.

Pachauri to Manmohan: Do attend Copenhagen

Pioneer News Service | New Delhi

On a day US President Barack Obama called up Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to discuss the situation in Afghanistan and the forthcoming Copenhagen climate change summit, IPCC chairman RK Pachauri became the latest to join the international bandwagon of those calling for Singh’s participation in the global negotiations, starting December 7.

More so, since India is at the crossroads’, what with the US and China having already set the tone by announcing their respective reduction targets and both Obama and Wen Jiabao confirming their participation in the UN summit. French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who too would attend, has also invited Singh to the summit. In fact, around 90 Presidents and Prime Ministers are expected to participate on the concluding day, on December 18.

The PMO said Obama called up Singh this morning and in a brief conversation the two discussed the situation in Afghanistan and the further steps that could be taken to bring peace and stability in the country. “The two leaders also discussed the forthcoming summit on Climate Change in Copenhagen.”

Singh told Obama that India would play a constructive role in the negotiations and looked forward to a successful outcome. In the run up to the summit, as the chances of a consensus for binding emission reduction targets look bleak, the importance of the participation of the heads of states is being stressed upon both to ensure a positive outcome and also since a political declaration too is being talked about.

According to Pachauri, Singh’s participation will be important, as it will signify that India is a deal maker and not a deal breaker.

Pachauri predicted that US’ announcement about cutting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 17 per cent by 2020, compared to 2005, and China’s announcement that it would reduce the GHG-intensity of its economy by 40-45 per cent by 2020, compared to 2005, would put more pressure on India to come up with similar quantitative commitments.

“Of course, India being a growing country cannot take any binding emission cuts. But if the talks happen in that way (developed nations agreeing for emission reductions), there would be no getting away from the fact that India will be under pressure. I personally think that in that scenario India should be willing to lay its National Action Plan on Climate change at the table at Copenhagen,” Pachauri, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) chief, said at a function here.

Advocating a shift towards renewable energy sources from fossil fuels, Pachauri said, “India must bargain at Copenhagen for large-scale resources to finance its solar mission”. His mantra for success at Copenhagen: A collective emission reduction target by industrialised countries by 2020, which he said would be “good if it was 20 per cent”; financial assistance to developing countries to cope with climate change effects; and transfer of cheap green technologies, perhaps through a technology fund.

MMS has assured that India wont be a spoiler. Why then the pressure from this guy?

So no wonder Pachauri is providing advise under guise of being reasonable!

Can some one summarise Copenhagen and impact on India please?

Reading about the way these climate scientists worked reminds me of the way 'eminent' historians in India work. Looks like academia loves the mafia way of functioning.

A whole lot of cooking of the books is going on.

The truth is that nobody gives a rip about climate is change. The aim here is putting protectionist barriers in place to prevent development of developing countries. That way a market for overpriced nuclear reactors can be created, the fuel source can be controlled, products & produce from third world countries can be rejected..etc.

We had a big debate on global warming in our college during my MSc.. I heard everything they said.. I don't find these carbon-tax is going to help.. nor do the anti-global warming efforts and research could help it out..

My question if global warming cannot be stopped what will happen to India and only India...??

According to Climategate, the world has actually faced a small decline in temperature since the 90s, which the CRU scientists fudged to give the illusion of global warming to pave the way for upcoming Copenhagen and planned carbon-tax. So is there a warming, or a cooling, going on??

On a related note, astrophysicists have been inferring from observations that all planets in our solar system are actually warming up!! So, it is not only earth which has been warmed by our misdemeanor, but Wow, that's a lot of CO2 "gas"!! Gore's carbon tax over all the planets will make him a multi-multi trillionaire.

And now, a Dec 2 article in msnbc says "Earth could plunge into sudden ice age" because of ongoing global warming.

WTF is going on people?

sumishi wrote::

Nothing, as usual attempts to fleece developing world. Thats about it. What they are after is not CO2 reduction or anything.

China and other developing countries have reached a stage where at some level they can manufacture except the cutting edge ones. So what does the developed world do, force the developing world to work only with the most advanced tech so that the royalty payments and patents stay with the developed world.

Are they ready for a deal where the west will be allowed to have exactly 0 patents on the "green" tech and this tech will be given away for free to developing world. Nothing new, another round of East India Company, thats about it.

Hindu reports
No legally binding emission cuts at Copenhagen: Ramesh

We are telling the world that India is voluntarily ready to reduce emission intensity by 20-25 per cent within 2020."

India is not going to accept any legally binding emission reduction agreement at the Copenhagen climate summit, Minister of State for Environment and Forest Jairam Ramesh told the Lok Sabha Thursday.

So its like CTBT negotiations. Will walkout if mandatory limits imposed.

Makes sense as reducing pollution is a good thing but not at cost of econoimic development. The Govt has foregone/underwent many things to achieve this goal.

and

India to reduce emission intensity 20-25 pc by 2020

IANS | New Delhi


Four days ahead of the Copenhagen climate summit, India on Thursday announced it will reduce its emission intensity by 20-25 percent by 2020 from the 2005 level.

Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh, in an eloquent exposition of the country's stand which he said was worked out in concert with some developing countries including China, said India was reducing the emission intensity -- the level of greenhouse gas emissions per unit of GDP -- in its own interest.

India's announcement came a few days after China announced a 40-45 percent cut in its emissions intensity by 2020 compared to 2005, Brazil announced 38-42 percent and Indonesia 26 percent.

India's emissions intensity is already lower than other emerging economies, and the minister said it had decreased 17.6 percent between 1990 and 2005.

The minister's reply came in a 65-minute speech at the end of a debate in the Lok Sabha on what India's position will be at the Dec 7-18 climate summit in the Danish capital.

Dispelling opposition fears of a "sellout" at the summit of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Ramesh said: "India will not accept a legally binding emission reduction cut and it will not accept a peaking date on its emissions."

He said there would be another non-negotiating position. Emission reduction actions India took on its own would not be open to international scrutiny, but "depending on concessions we can get from western countries, and in consultation with China, Brazil, South Africa and other countries in G77, we can consider opening to international review all our mitigation actions supported by international finances".

Starting his speech with the observation, "India is the country most vulnerable to climate change", Ramesh said this was due to four reasons -- the country's dependence on the monsoons, the receding of the Himalayan glaciers, the presence of ecologically sensitive areas, and the fact that climate change would exacerbate the effect of mining in forest areas of Jharkhand, Orissa and Chhattisgarh.

Ramesh said the problem was that India had hardly any information of its own on climate change effects, which he called "a pathetic state of affairs". Most of the information was derived from Western sources, he said, adding that there was urgent need to start research and have "our own scientific capacity" to study all aspects of climate change in India.

India should have started researching effects of climate change 20 years ago, Ramesh said, adding that the government had started a network of laboratories to research the phenomenon. "We must have our own scientific capacity to understand the impact of climate change."

Talking about India's position at Copenhagen, he said: "The prime minister's instructions to me was, India has not caused the problem of global warming, but try and make sure india is part of the solution; be constructive, be proactive.

"Then I asked myself what is India's position. I found that it only was that our per capita emissions were very low, yours (western countries) very high, therefore we won't do it, we're entitled to pollute more."

The minister felt India had to move beyond this position because it "must negotiate from a position of strength, of leadership. We're going to Copenhagen in a positive frame of mind, prepared to be flexible. We want a comprehensive and equitable agreement. We are realistic enough to know such an agreement may not materialise, but we will work with like minded countries, with China, and with others, to ensure there is a comprehensive and equitable arrangement."

He announced that India, China, Brazil and South Africa had tabled a draft to this effect to the UNFCCC Wednesday.

Reacting to criticism from the Left parties, Ramesh was at pains to reiterate that India was a part of G77 and China negotiating bloc, "but that does not mean we don't talk to anybody else; and every time we talk to America it does not mean we're selling our country down the drain".

"Having global aspirations and assuming global responsibilities are two sides of the same coin," the minister held.

He said the 20-25 percent emissions intensity cut had been worked out by the Planning Commission. "The 12th Five Year Plan which starts in 2012 will be based on a low-carbon growth strategy."

Explaining how this would be done, Ramesh outlined a five-step plan of action:

* Mandatory fuel efficiency standards for all vehicles by December 2011;

* A building code that encouraged energy conservation, with a recommendation to local governments to make this mandatory;

* Amendments to various laws to reduce energy intensity of industrial activities;

* Regular monitoring of the state of the forests, which now absorbed about 10 percent of India's greenhouse gas emissions; and

* Half of the new coal based power plants coming up to use clean coal technologies -- super critical, ultra super critical and coal gasification.

"This is our baseline," Ramesh said. "If we have a successful agreement at Copenhagen, if it's equitable, if our worries are taken care of, we are prepared to do even more."

Ramesh said: "Flexibility does not mean sellout, it only means ability to move in rapidly evolving situations; we're not living in isolation; we're going there to get the best agreement for India."

India not to sign legally binding emission agreement

India is not going to accept any legally binding emission reduction agreement at the Copenhagen climate summit, Minister of State for Environment and Forest Jairam Ramesh told the Lok Sabha on Thursday.

The minister was replying to a lively four-hour debate on the climate change and the position India will take at the Dec 8- 18 international summit.

"India will never accept a legally binding emission reduction agreement," Ramesh said.

"There are some attempts by some countries that developing countries should announce when their emissions will peak. We will not sign a peaking year agreement. This is not acceptable. There is no question on compromising on these two non-negotiables but depends on the concessions we get from the international community."

Meanwhile, replying to a debate in the Lok Sabha, the lower house of parliament, on India's position at the Dec 7-18 climate summit in Copenhagen, Ramesh said India was most vulnerable to climate change due to four reasons.

First, two-thirds of India's population was still dependent on the monsoon, which was impacted by climate change.

Two, climate change impacted the Himalayan glaciers, which were receding, endangering the water flow in the rivers of northern India.

Third, ecologically sensitive areas such as the Western Ghats, the North East, Andamans, Lakshadweep were being impacted by climate change.

Fourth, climate change would exacerbate the effect of mining in forest areas of Jharkhand, Orissa, Chhattisgarh.

Ramesh said the problem was that India had hardly any information of its own on climate change effects, which he called "a pathetic state of affairs". He said most of the information was derived from Western sources and talked of the urgent need to start research and have "our own scientific capacity" to study all aspects of climate change in India.

China backs India on emissions cut stance

Beijing: China on Thursday said it supported Indian measures to curb greenhouse gas emissions and was ready to strengthen cooperation with India on climate change.

"We understand the current situation in India. China supports India to take adaptation and mitigation measures based on its national conditions and capacity," Xinhua reported quoting Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang.

"China is ready to strengthen communication, coordination and cooperation with India on climate change," he said.

India announced Thursday that the country will significantly reduce its carbon dioxide emissions by cutting the emission intensity by 20 to 25 percent.

"China and India are both developing countries and victims of climate change. The two countries do not have the obligation to binding emission reduction targets on climate change," he said.

Last week, China announced it is going to reduce the intensity of carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP in 2020 by 40 to 45 percent compared with the level of 2005.

Guess they would have been much higher and not lumped with PRC's levels.

IMO, India should push for per-capita emission standards, because one person’s extravagance impacts other person. In addition to that, India should propose for per-capita carbon credits, whose remittances will be used to help the under-developed and developing world based on the same bench-mark.

A demonstration of the lobotomized Indian political leadership:

No climate sceptics in Lok Sabha

TNN 4 December 2009, 01:30am IST

NEW DELHI: The West has its share of politicians who revel being climate change deniers, but the Indian Parliament presented a rather different picture with each and every MP who spoke in Lok Sabha on Thursday accepting the clear and present danger of global warming.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 297601.cms

These guys are not qualified to be Safai Karmacharis.