Reaktioner på Durban

Diverse — Drokles on December 13, 2011 at 5:06 am

Det er svært at blive klog på, hvad en klimakonference egentlig handler om, hvis man blot læser de danske aviser, som goldt kolporterer enten politikernes eller interesseorganisationers ud- og indfald ved deres egne klimajournalister, der endda også blot politiserer til fordel for interesseorganisationer. En sluttet ring af rygklappere. Politikerne var i første omgang svært tilfredse med de fremskridt imod en smadring af økonomien og folkets selvbestemmelsesret man havde opnået ved tilsagn som Politiken rapporterer

Mødets leder, den sydafrikanske udenrigsminister Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, vurderer, at man fik det resultat, der skulle nås.

»Vi kom her med en Plan A og vi har afsluttet mødet med en Plan A for at redde en planet. Det, vi har gjort, er historisk«, erklærer hun.

Andre hæfter sig ved, at det for første gang er lykkedes at få kontrære lande som USA og Kina til endeligt at gå med på, at der skal indføres bindende aftaler om at mindske udslippene af CO2. De to lande har hidtil modarbejdet bestræbelserne på at få dem til at tilslutte sig kampen mod klimaforandringerne.

Interesseorganisationerne var selvfølgelig hurtige til at drysse malurt i bægeret, som man kunne læse i Berlingske Tidende

Det er et usselt resultat. Sådan stempler de danske NGO-organisationer den klimaaftale, som verdens industri- og udviklingslande er nået frem til på FN’s klimakonference i den sydafrikanske by Durban.

På klimamødet, der sluttede tidligt søndag morgen, blev det aftalt, at Kyoto-aftalen skal forlænges, og at en ny global klimaaftale skal forhandles færdig inden 2015 og gælde fra 2020.

Og det resultat skuffer miljøorganisationerne.

- Det er for usselt, at de store lande med USA i spidsen nu får lov at vente til efter 2020 med at igangsætte den nødvendige klimaindsats. Med aftalen accepterer verdens lande at sætte kurs mod kaos i klodens klimasystem, siger Troels Dam Christensen, koordinator for 92-gruppen, der er en sammenslutning af danske miljø- og udviklingsorganisationer.

Og midt i det hele kunne man læse en besynderlig historie i Jyllands-Posten om hvorledes ekstra afgifter på erhvervslivet var en fordel for dansk konkurenceevne.

Først i 2020 vil verdens 192 lande for alvor tage hånd om CO2-udledningen, der skal bremse den globale opvarmning.

Sådan lyder resultatet af klimaforhandlingerne i Durban, og den udvikling kan på sigt styrke danske virksomheders konkurrenceevne.

Mange års brug af grønne afgifter har nemlig tvunget dansk erhvervsliv ud i energibesparelser og alternative energiløsninger, som har skærpet vores konkurrenceevne.

Tendensen kan fortsætte, hvis resultatet i Durban udskyder udenlandske konkurrenters grønne omstilling, mens danske virksomheder står over for nye grønne afgifter.

Logikken er at de sure forhold for dansk erhvervslivs har hærdet dansk erhvervsliv så de er klar, hvis nu resten af verden skulle være lige så dumme. Håbet er lysegrønt. Fælles for disse meninger er at klimaet er truet af forandring og ingen forandring er farligere end den mennesket kan have foresaget ved sin virksomhed. På Watts Up With That skriver Dennis Ray Wingo

There are two critical assumptions that underpin the entire Durban conference as well as previous efforts; the first assumption is that we live in a limited world and that this wealth transfer and the immediate cessation of CO2 emissions is the only possible path toward a “sustainable” future. The second is that technology cannot solve the problem but politics can. What are these assumptions built upon and are they valid? Is this the only path forward? Are we destined to leave our global posterity in a state of perpetual semi-poverty? Human nature rebels against this doom and gloom view of the future, and with good reason.

The Assumptions

I do not wish to seem overdramatic, but I can only conclude from the information that is available to me as Secretary-General, that the Members of the United Nations have perhaps ten years left in which to subordinate their ancient quarrels and launch a global partnership to curb the arms race, to improve the human environment, to defuse the population explosion, and to supply the required momentum to development efforts. If such a global partnership is not forged within the next decade, then I very much fear that the problems that I have mentioned will have reached staggering proportions that they will be beyond our capacity to control.

Who said this? This statement could have very well have been the preamble to the Durban conference but it actually was uttered by UN Secretary General U Thant in 1969 and is included as the introduction to the book, Limits to Growth. The book “Limits to Growth” (LTG) is the touchstone of the environmental movement as well as the ultimate source of the two underpinning assumptions of the Durban conference.

Men det indebære også et paradoks, som Reason Foundation pointerer

But there is an internal contradiction in the IPCC’s own claims. Indeed, the same highly influential report from the IPCC claims both that poor countries will fare terribly and that they will be much better off than they are today. So, which is it? The apparent contradiction arises because of inconsistencies in the way the IPCC assesses impacts. The process begins with various scenarios of future emissions.

These scenarios are themselves predicated on certain assumptions about the rate of economic growth and related technological change. Under the IPCC’s highest growth scenario, by 2100 GDP per capita in poor countries will be double the U.S.’s 2006 level, even taking into account any negative impact of climate change. (By 2200, it will be triple.) Yet that very same scenario is also the one that leads to the greatest rise in temperature—and is the one that has been used to justify all sorts of scare stories about the impact of climate change on the poor. Under this highest growth scenario (known as A1FI), the poor will logically have adopted, adapted and innovated all manner of new technololgies, making them far better able to adapt to the future climate. But these improvements in adaptive capacity are virtually ignored by most global warming impact assessments. Consequently, the IPCC’s “impacts” assessments systematically overestimate the negative impact of global warming, while underestimating the positive impact. Moreover, in these “impacts” assessments, global warming is not expected for the most part to create new problems; rather, it is expected to exacerbate some existing problems of poverty (in particular, hunger, disease, extreme events), while relieving others (such as habitat loss and water shortages in some places).

Den slags skal selvfølgelig ikke stå i vejen for en god vilje og hvad er en bedre vilje end afskaffelse af krig og andre dårligdomme når de nu har en skadelig virkning på klimaet? Lord Monckton giver en glimrende gennemgang af FN’s arbejdpapirer, her i uddrag

The contents of this document, turgidly drafted with all the UN’s skill at what the former head of its documentation center used to call “transparent impenetrability”, are not just off the wall – they are lunatic.

Main points:

Ø A new International Climate Court will have the power to compel Western nations to pay ever-larger sums to third-world countries in the name of making reparation for supposed “climate debt”. The Court will have no power over third-world countries. Here and throughout the draft, the West is the sole target. “The process” is now irredeemably anti-Western.

Ø “Rights of Mother Earth”: The draft, which seems to have been written by feeble-minded green activists and environmental extremists, talks of “The recognition and defence of the rights of Mother Earth to ensure harmony between humanity and nature”. Also, “there will be no commodification [whatever that may be: it is not in the dictionary and does not deserve to be] of the functions of nature, therefore no carbon market will be developed with that purpose”.

Ø “Right to survive”: The draft childishly asserts that “The rights of some Parties to survive are threatened by the adverse impacts of climate change, including sea level rise.” At 2 inches per century, according to eight years’ data from the Envisat satellite? Oh, come off it! The Jason 2 satellite, the new kid on the block, shows that sea-level has actually dropped over the past three years.

Ø War and the maintenance of defence forces and equipment are to cease – just like that – because they contribute to climate change. There are other reasons why war ought to cease, but the draft does not mention them.

Ø A new global temperature target will aim, Canute-like, to limit “global warming” to as little as 1 C° above pre-industrial levels. Since temperature is already 3 C° above those levels, what is in effect being proposed is a 2 C° cut in today’s temperatures. This would take us halfway back towards the last Ice Age, and would kill hundreds of millions. Colder is far more dangerous than warmer.

Ø The new CO2 emissions target, for Western countries only, will be a reduction of up to 50% in emissions over the next eight years and of “more than 100%” [these words actually appear in the text] by 2050. So, no motor cars, no coal-fired or gas-fired power stations, no aircraft, no trains. Back to the Stone Age, but without even the right to light a carbon-emitting fire in your caves. Windmills, solar panels and other “renewables” are the only alternatives suggested in the draft. There is no mention of the immediate and rapid expansion of nuclear power worldwide to prevent near-total economic destruction.

Ø The new CO2 concentration target could be as low as 300 ppmv CO2 equivalent (i.e., including all other greenhouse gases as well as CO2 itself). That is a cut of almost half compared with the 560 ppmv CO2 equivalent today. It implies just 210 ppmv of CO2 itself, with 90 ppmv CO2 equivalent from other greenhouse gases. But at 210 ppmv, plants and trees begin to die. CO2 is plant food. They need a lot more of it than 210 ppmv.

Ø The peak-greenhouse-gas target year – for the West only – will be this year. We will be obliged to cut our emissions from now on, regardless of the effect on our economies (and the lack of effect on the climate).

Ø The West will pay for everything, because of its “historical responsibility” for causing “global warming”. Third-world countries will not be obliged to pay anything. But it is the UN, not the third-world countries, that will get the money from the West, taking nearly all of it for itself as usual. There is no provision anywhere in the draft for the UN to publish accounts of how it has spent the $100 billion a year the draft demands that the West should stump up from now on.

The real lunacy comes in the small print – all of it in 8-point type, near-illegibly printed on grubby, recycled paper. Every fashionable leftist idiocy is catered for.

Talking of which, note in passing that Rajendra Pachauri, the railroad engineer who, in the topsy-turvy looking-glass world of international climate insanity is the “science” chairman of the UN’s climate panel, has admitted that no one has been talking about climate science at the climate conference here in Durban. Not really surprising, given no real warming for getting on for two decades, no recent sea-level rise, no new record Arctic ice-melt, fewer hurricanes than at almost any time in 30 years, no Pacific atolls disappearing beneath the waves.

Here – and, as always, you heard it here first, for the mainstream media have conspired to keep secret the Madness of King Rajendra and his entire coterie of governmental and bureaucratic lunatics worldwide – is what the dribbling, twitching thrones and dominions, principalities and powers of the world will be asked to agree to.

“International Climate Court of Justice”: This kangaroo court is to be established by next year “to guarantee the compliance of Annex I Parties with all the provisions of this decision, which are essential elements in the obtaining of the global goal”. Note that, here as elsewhere, the bias is only against the nations of the West. However badly the third-world countries behave, they cannot be brought before the new court. Though none of what the draft calls the “modalities” of the proposed marsupial dicastery are set out in detail, one can imagine that the intention is to oblige Western nations to pay up however much the world government run by the Convention secretariat feels like demanding, just as the unelected tyrants of the EU demand – and get – ever-larger cash payments from the ever-shrinking economies and ever-poorer tribute-payers of their dismal empire.

(…)

“Historical responsibility”: The nations of the West (for which the UN’s code is “Annex I parties”) are from now on required to beat their breasts (or at least their strait-jackets) and acknowledge their “historical responsibility” for increasing CO2 emissions and giving us warmer weather. The draft says: “Acknowledging that the largest share of the historical global emissions of greenhouse gases originated in Annex I Parties and that, owing to this historical responsibility in terms of their contribution to the average global temperature increase, Annex I Parties must take the lead in combating climate change and the adverse effects thereof.” This new concept of “historical responsibility” – suspiciously akin to the “war-guilt” of post-1918 Germany, declared by the imprudent governments of the world at the Versailles conference, which was no small cause of World War II – further underscores the rapidly-growing anti-Western bias in the UN and in the Convention’s secretariat.

Who pays? Oh, you guessed it before I told you. The West pays. The third world (UN code: “non-Annex-I parties”) thinks it will collect, so it will always vote for the UN’s insane proposals. But the UN’s bureaucrats will actually get all or nearly all the money, and will decide how to allocate what minuscule fraction they have not already spent on themselves. As a senior UN diplomat told me last year, “The UN exists for only one purpose: to get more money. That, and that alone, is the reason why it takes such an interest in climate change.” The draft says: “Developed-country Parties shall provide developing-country Parties with new and additional finance, inter alia through a percentage of the gross domestic product of developed-country Parties.” And, of course, “The extent of participation by non-Annex-I parties in the global effort to deal with climate change is directly dependent on the level of support provided by developed-country Parties.”

(…)

Review of Western nations’ conduct: Once the multitude of mechanisms for Western nations’ compulsory reporting to the world government are in place, the information gathered by it will be used as the basis of a continuous review of every aspect of their compliance with the various agreements and concords, whether legally-binding or not. Teams of five to eight members of the Convention’s secretariat will scrutinize each Western nation’s conduct, and will have the power to ask questions and to require additional information, as well as to make recommendations that will gradually become binding. The world government will then prepare a record of the review for each Western nation, including reports of various aspects of the review, an assessment of that nation’s compliance, questions and answers, conclusions and recommendations (eventually instructions) to that nation, and a “facilitative process” (UN code for a mechanism to compel the nation to do as it is told by people whom no one has elected).

Det bringer mig til et andet paradoks, som jeg ofte har fremhævet, nemlig at en eventuel ødelæggelse af verdensøkonomien, om den så blot er midlertidig, under vægten af dyre og irrationelle klimatiltag kan medføre social uro og eventuelt politiske omvæltninger, hvilket, som historien har vist, er gode vækstbetingelser for ikke bare krig, men endda klimauvenlig krig. Nok om det, det handler om klimaet og nu Løkke ikke er ved roret kan man ikke skyde skylden på ham så i stedet roser man Connie Hedegaard, som en “klimahelt” ifølge Jyllands-Posten

“Hun er meget, meget dygtig, og det er heldigt, at vi har hende. Hun holdt det hele sammen på en meget imponerende facon - en klassepræstation,” lyder de rosende ord fra Storbritanniens energi- og klimaminister, Chris Huhne om Hedegaard.

Spørgsmålet om, hvorfor de store lande som USA og Kina ikke vil lave en bindende aftale forklares skolaanalyserende med særinteresser og reaktionære republikanere, som end ikke en klimahelt kan kæmpe imod. Sandheden er måske snarere den at de store lande venter klimahysteriet ud i tiltro til dens snarlige død under vægten af dels en skuffende klimaudvikling og dels hysteriets arnesteds åbenlyse korruption, som selv de engelske medier er begyndt at skrive om her ved Daily Mail

More than 5,000 documents have been leaked online purporting to be the correspondence of climate scientists at the University of East Anglia who were previously accused of ‘massaging’ evidence of man-made climate change.

Following on from the original ‘climategate’ emails of 2009, the new package appears to show systematic suppression of evidence, and even publication of reports that scientists knew to to be based on flawed approaches.

And not only do the emails paint a picture of scientists manipulating data, government employees at the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) are also implicated.

One message appeared to show a member of Defra staff telling colleagues working on climate science to give the government a ‘strong message’.

The emails paint a clear picture of scientists selectively using data, and colluding with politicians to misuse scientific information.

‘Humphrey’, said to work at Defra, writes: ‘I cannot overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a message that the government can give on climate change to help them tell their story.

‘They want their story to be a very strong one and don’t want to be made to look foolish.’

Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the centre of the affair, said the group findings did stand up to scrutiny.

Yet one of the newly released emails, written by Prof. Jones - who is working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - said: ‘Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden.

‘I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.’

Det er min fremhævelse af Daily Mail’s konklusioner som ligger i tråd med Forbes “fraud of massive scope”.

0 Kommentarer »

Ingen kommentarer endnu.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Kommentér indlægget...

Monokultur kører på WordPress