Copenhagen Climate Change Conference = The League of Nations

[Dogwatcher]

Was Billy Hughes there?

[Jimmy_041]

Perhaps off topic but this was sent to me and fascinated me (note - may not be 100% accurate)

Below is a list of the 114 Australian’s going to Copenhagen – we (you and I) are paying for all their travel, accommodation and meals – and "we thought Kevin Rudd and Penny Wong were genuine" about trying to cut greenhouse gases…
(NB. India and other major players have delegations of only 20-40 pax.)
Read on and marvel:

Australia

H.E. Mr. Kevin Michael Rudd Prime Minister
H.E. Ms. Penelope Wong Minister, Climate Change and Water Office of the Minister for Climate Change and Water
H.E. Ms. Louise Helen Hand Ambassador for Climate Change Department of Climate Change
Mr. David Fredericks Deputy Chief of Staff Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
Mr. Philip Green Oam Senior Policy Adviser, Foreign Affairs Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
Mr. Andrew Charlton Senior Adviser Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
Mr. Lachlan Harris Senior Press Secretary Prime Minister’s Office Office of Prime Minister
Mr. Scott Dewar Senior Adviser Office of Prime Minister
Ms. Clare Penrose Adviser Office of Prime Minister
Ms. Fiona Sugden Media Adviser Office of Prime Minister
Ms. Lisa French Office of the Prime Minister Office of Prime Minister
Mr. Jeremy Hilman Adviser Office of Prime Minister
Ms. Tarah Barzanji Adviser Office of Prime Minister
Mr. Kate Shaw Executive Secretary Office of Prime Minister
Ms. Gaile Barnes Executive Assistant Office of Prime Minister
Ms. Gordon de Brouwer Deputy Secretary Prime Minister and Cabinet
Mr. Patrick Suckling First Assistant Secretary, International Division Prime Minister and Cabinet
Ms. Rebecca Christie Prime Minister’s Office
Mr. Michael Jones Official Photographer Prime Minister and Cabinet
Mr. Stephan Rudzki
Mr. David Bell Federal Agent Australian Federal Police
Ms. Kym Baillie Australian Federal Police
Mr. David Champion Australian Federal Police
Mr. Matt Jebb Federal Agent Australian Federal Police
Mr. Craig Kendall Federal Agent Australian Federal Police
Mr. Ian Lane Squadron Leader Staff, Officer VIP Operations
Mr. John Olenich Media Adviser / Adviser to Minister Wong Office of the Minister for Climate Change and Water
Ms. Kristina Hickey Adviser to Minister Wong Office of the Minister for Climate Change and Water
Mr. Martin Parkinson Secretary Department of Climate Change
Mr. Howard Bamsey Special Envoy for Climate Change Department of Climate Change
Mr. Robert Owen-Jones Assistant Secretary, International Division Department of Climate Change
Ms. Clare Walsh Assistant Secretary, International Division Department of Climate Change
Ms. Jenny Elizabeth Wilkinson Policy Advisor Department of Climate Change
Ms. Elizabeth Mary Peak Principal Legal Adviser, International Climate Law Department of Climate Change
Ms. Kristin Tilley Director, Multilateral Negotiations International Division Department of Climate Change
Mr. Andrew Ure Acting Director, Multilateral Negotiations International Division Department of Climate Change
Ms. Annemarie Watt Director, Land Sector Negotiations International Division Department of Climate Change
Ms. Kushla Munro Director, International Forest Carbon Section International Division Department of Climate Change
Ms. Kathleen Annette Rowley Director, Strategic and Technical Analysis Department of Climate Change
Ms. Anitra Cowan Assistant Director, Multilateral Negotiations Department of Climate Change
Ms. Sally Truong Assisting Director, Multilateral Negotiations International Division Department of Climate Change
Ms. Jane Wilkinson Assistant Director Department of Climate Change
Ms. Tracey Mackay Assistant Director International Division Department of Climate Change
Ms. Laura Brown Assistant Director, Multilateral Negotiations International Division Department of Climate Change
Ms. Tracey-Anne Leahey Delegation Manager Department of Climate Change
Ms. Nicola Loffler Senior Legal Adviser, International Climate Law Department of Climate Change
Ms. Tamara Curll Legal Adviser, International Climate Law Department of Climate Change
Ms. Jessica Allen Legal Support Officer Department of Climate Change
Mr. Sanjiva de Silva Legal Adviser, International Climate Law Department of Climate Change
Ms. Gaia Puleston Political Adviser Department of Climate Change
Ms. Penelope Jane Morton Policy Adviser, Multilateral Negotiations (UNFCCC) International Division Department of Climate Change
Ms. Claire Elizabeth Watt Policy Advisor Department of Climate Change
Ms. Amanda Walker Policy Officer, Multilateral Negotiations Department of Climate Change
Mr. Alan David Lee Policy Adviser, Land Sector Negotiations Department of Climate Change
Ms. Erika Kate Oord Australian Stakeholder Manager Department of Climate Change
Mr. Jahda Kirian Swanborough Communications Manager Ministerial Communication Department of Climate Change
H.E. Mr. Sharyn Minahan Ambassador DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark
Ms. Julia Feeney Director, Climate Change and Environment Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Mr. Chester Geoffrey Cunningham Second Secretary DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Germany
Ms. Rachael Virginia Cooper Executive Officer, Climate Change and Environment Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Ms. Rachael Grivas Executive Officer, Environment Branch Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Moya Elyn Collett Desk officer, Climate Change and Environment Section Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Mr. Rob Law Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Mr. Robin Davies Assistant Director General, Sustainable Development Group Australian Agency for International Development
Ms. Deborah Fulton Director, Policy and Global Environment Australian Agency for International Development
Ms. Katherine Renee Ann Vaughn Policy Advisor, Policy and Global Environment Australian Agency for International Development
Mr. Brian Dawson Policy Adviser Australian Agency for International Development
Mr. Andrew Leigh Clarke Deputy Secretary Department of Resources Development, Western Australia
Mr. Bruce Wilson General Manager, Environment Energy and Environment Division Department of Resources Development, Western Australia
Ms. Jill McCarthy Policy Adviser Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism
Mr. Simon French Policy Adviser Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
Mr. Ian Michael Ruscoe Policy Adviser Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
Mr. David Walland Acting Superintendent, National Climate Centre Bureau of Meteorology
Mr. Damien Dunn Senior Policy Adviser The Australian Treasury
Ms. Helen Hawka Fuhrman Policy Officer, Renewable Energy Policy and Partnerships
Mr. Scott Vivian Davenport Chief Economics NSW Department of Industry and Investment
Mr. Graham Julian Levitt Policy Manager, Climate Change NSW Department of Industry and Investment
Ms. Kate Jennifer Jones Minister, Climate Change and Sustainability Queensland Government
Mr. Michael William Dart Principal Policy Advisor Office of the Hon. Kate Jones MP Queensland Government
Mr. Matthew Anthony Jamie Skoien Senior Director, Office of Climate Change Queensland Government
Mr. Michael David Rann Premier, South Australia Department of Premier and Cabinet, Southern Australia
Ms. Suzanne Kay Harter Adviser Department of Premier and Cabinet, Southern Australia
Mr. Paul David Flanagan Manager, Communications Government of South Australia
Mr. Timothy William O’Loughlin Deputy Chief Executive, Sustainability and Workforce Management Department of Premier and Cabinet South Australian Government
Ms. Nyla Sarwar M.Sc student Linacre College University of Oxford
Mr. Gavin Jennings Minister, Environment and Climate Change and Innovation, Victorian Government
Ms. Sarah Broadbent Sustainability Adviser
Ms. Rebecca Falkingham Senior Adviser Victoria Government/Office of Climate Change
Mr. Simon Camroux Policy Adviser Energy Supply Association of Australia Limited
Mr. Geoff Lake Adviser Australian Local Government Association Sridhar Ayyalaraju Post Visit Controller DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark
Mr. Tegan Brink Deputy Visit Controller and Security Liaison Officer Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark
Ms. Melissa Eu Suan Goh Transport Liaison Officer and Consul DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark
Ms. Lauren Henschke Support Staff DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark
Ms. Maree Fay Accommodation Liaison Officer DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark
Ms. Patricia McKinnon Communications Officer DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark
Eugene Olim Passport / Baggage Liaison Officer DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark
Ms. Belinda Lee Adams
Ms. Jacqui Ashworth Media Liaison Officer Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark
Ms. Patricia Smith Media Liaison Officer DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark
Mr. Martin Bo Jensen Research and Public Diplomatic Officer DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark
Mr. Mauro Kolobaric Consular Support DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark
Ms. Susan Flanagan Consular Support DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark
Mr. Stephen Kanaridis IT Support Officer DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark
Mr. George Reid Support Staff DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark
Ms. Ashley Wright Support Staff DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark
Ms. Jodie Littlewood Support Staff DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark
Mr. Thomas Millhouse Support Staff DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark
Mr. Timothy Whittley Support Staff Driver DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark
Ms. Julia Thomson Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark
Mr. Donald Frater Chief of Staff to Minister Wong Office of the Minister for Climate Change and Water
Ms. Jacqui Smith Media Liaison DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark
Mr. Greg French Senior Legal Advisor, Environment Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Mr. Jeremy Hillman Advisor PMO

Kate Ellis Minister for Sport must have been pissed she didn't get a flag - she usually gets a ticket to every event

[Psyber]

Copenhagen was all a bit of a farce...the CC debate is all about making money for certain contradicting people...sure we need to curb our uses but with recent findings being falsified to say its worse than what it really is, its all a bit of a joke. Its being labeled that over here for the so-called saviour in charge

Jimmy could you please elaborate on these two statements?

Don't bother with the flat-earthers mate. It doesn't matter what mainstream science says they just keep changing the goal posts when pulled up. Look at Ian Plimer's humiliating performance on Lateline the other week, they're all about trying to muddy the waters.

I thought the other guy was doing that by focussing on any small errors of fact he could find rather than looking at the overall geophysical science of the issue.
That is a standard technique - if you don't like a book search it for a few errors that make little or no difference to the main argument and focus on criticising those errors to try to make the whole thrust of the publication look to be in error to the ignorant. With luck you can get the baby thrown out with the bath water...

Pilmer obviously made some errors, in misquoting a few references, but he was right not to be diverted into debating those side issues instead of the broad picture.

Talking about muddying the waters, how about the guys on the grant bandwagon who altered their own findings and got caught.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/scien ... .html?_r=2

Ever since university funding started coming with strings, and the focus was shifted from funding pure research to funding "teaching" and pumping out graduates with "qualifications" under the Hawke/Keating regime, science has been able to be perverted in the pursuit of grants from politicians and from commercial interests.

The quality of education has declined, so that Universities are hardly worth the name.
Students are given lots of superficial projects to complete and turning out stuff your lecturer likes determines their results.
Once upon a time you spent more time reading and getting to know your subject in depth and demonstrated you did in independent examinations without the text books next to you.
That way you were tested on your knowledge not on your conformity to your lecturers' bias.
This bred graduates whose primary goal was Science, not just producing publications their seniors would approve of.

[fish]

Copenhagen was all a bit of a farce...the CC debate is all about making money for certain contradicting people...sure we need to curb our uses but with recent findings being falsified to say its worse than what it really is, its all a bit of a joke. Its being labeled that over here for the so-called saviour in charge

Jimmy could you please elaborate on these two statements?

No 1 - Al Gore, hypocrite, telling people they HAVE to do this and that to save the climate yet has his own private jet to fly him around...he has made more money through this endeavor than anything before. People can make money on such things, but you'd think they would lead by example.

No 2 - there were leaks from scientists who said that they changed reports and didnt report certain findings that didnt back up the current position on climate change and gave no urgency to the matter as is being presented. I can provide examples from new sources on these...would have been in the papers/online over here about 1-2 weeks ago.

I am all for looking after the environment and doing things to curb our influence but the way certain ppl shove it down our throats is disgusting.

Jimmy to say that "the Climate Change debate is all about making money for certain contradicting people" just because some people (probably his old political foes ) have thrown some mud at Al Gore is clearly ridiculous. The Climate Change debate continues primarily as it has for the past decade or two - on the science behind climate change and, more recently, on mitigation and adaptation.

As for the hacked emails they could either be seen as an embarrasment or as proof that scientists continually discuss and question their research and results as per robust scientific methods.

I'm glad to see that people such as yourself are questioning the science and policy behind Climate Change but "shooting the messengers" as you have done here does not, in my opinion, add anything to the debate.

[fish]

So....from what I've read about the proposed Government initiative, Rudd's plan was to:

1. Tax the power companies
2. Recompense the power companies for the tax
3. Partly recompense us for the higher power bills
4. Recompense the people on lower wages 120% of their higher cost

Sounds fair

Agreed Jimmy_041 (and Psyber) the ETS does seem to be a bit of a dogs breakfast and certainly has not been well explained to the public.

And a key deficiency is that agriculture is excluded which would quarantine a whole lot of emissions (including methane - a powerful greenhouse gas) from the scheme.

I generally agree with the idea of putting a price (and an ever reducing cap) on carbon and methane in order to reduce emissions by market forces, but have yet to reconcile how this would work in a global marketplace unless every country is playing by the same rules. This, to me, was the big failure of Copenhagen in that those rules were not established so we are back to where we were with each country doing what it wants unilaterally and on an ad-hoc basis.

[Jimmy_041]

It was purely and simply a very poor attempt at redistribution of wealth

[Jimmy_041]

I cant remember where I posted it, but I did say I would like to see what the biggest polluter in the World would do before we start sending our money overseas. Seems I was correct about them:

How do I know China wrecked the Copenhagen deal? I was in the room

The Guardian / Wednesday, 23 December 2009

Journalist Mark Lynas was in the room when world leaders were negotiating at Copenhagen, says there’s no doubt about it: it’s all China’s fault. An incredible fly-on-the-wall account of how the big boys behave behind closed doors.

Copenhagen was a disaster. That much is agreed. But the truth about what actually happened is in danger of being lost amid the spin and inevitable mutual recriminations. The truth is this: China wrecked the talks, intentionally humiliated Barack Obama, and insisted on an awful "deal" so western leaders would walk away carrying the blame. How do I know this? Because I was in the room and saw it happen.

China's strategy was simple: block the open negotiations for two weeks, and then ensure that the closed-door deal made it look as if the west had failed the world's poor once again. And sure enough, the aid agencies, civil society movements and environmental groups all took the bait. The failure was "the inevitable result of rich countries refusing adequately and fairly to shoulder their overwhelming responsibility", said Christian Aid. "Rich countries have bullied developing nations," fumed Friends of the Earth International.

All very predictable, but the complete opposite of the truth. Even George Monbiot, writing in yesterday's Guardian, made the mistake of singly blaming Obama. But I saw Obama fighting desperately to salvage a deal, and the Chinese delegate saying "no", over and over again. Monbiot even approvingly quoted the Sudanese delegate Lumumba Di-Aping, who denounced the Copenhagen accord as "a suicide pact, an incineration pact, in order to maintain the economic dominance of a few countries".

Sudan behaves at the talks as a puppet of China; one of a number of countries that relieves the Chinese delegation of having to fight its battles in open sessions. It was a perfect stitch-up. China gutted the deal behind the scenes, and then left its proxies to savage it in public.

Here's what actually went on late last Friday night, as heads of state from two dozen countries met behind closed doors. Obama was at the table for several hours, sitting between Gordon Brown and the Ethiopian prime minister, Meles Zenawi. The Danish prime minister chaired, and on his right sat Ban Ki-moon, secretary-general of the UN. Probably only about 50 or 60 people, including the heads of state, were in the room. I was attached to one of the delegations, whose head of state was also present for most of the time.

What I saw was profoundly shocking. The Chinese premier, Wen Jinbao, did not deign to attend the meetings personally, instead sending a second-tier official in the country's foreign ministry to sit opposite Obama himself. The diplomatic snub was obvious and brutal, as was the practical implication: several times during the session, the world's most powerful heads of state were forced to wait around as the Chinese delegate went off to make telephone calls to his "superiors".

Shifting the blame

To those who would blame Obama and rich countries in general, know this: it was China's representative who insisted that industrialised country targets, previously agreed as an 80% cut by 2050, be taken out of the deal. "Why can't we even mention our own targets?" demanded a furious Angela Merkel. Australia's prime minister, Kevin Rudd, was annoyed enough to bang his microphone. Brazil's representative too pointed out the illogicality of China's position. Why should rich countries not announce even this unilateral cut? The Chinese delegate said no, and I watched, aghast, as Merkel threw up her hands in despair and conceded the point. Now we know why – because China bet, correctly, that Obama would get the blame for the Copenhagen accord's lack of ambition.

China, backed at times by India, then proceeded to take out all the numbers that mattered. A 2020 peaking year in global emissions, essential to restrain temperatures to 2C, was removed and replaced by woolly language suggesting that emissions should peak "as soon as possible". The long-term target, of global 50% cuts by 2050, was also excised. No one else, perhaps with the exceptions of India and Saudi Arabia, wanted this to happen. I am certain that had the Chinese not been in the room, we would have left Copenhagen with a deal that had environmentalists popping champagne corks popping in every corner of the world.

Strong position

So how did China manage to pull off this coup? First, it was in an extremely strong negotiating position. China didn't need a deal. As one developing country foreign minister said to me: "The Athenians had nothing to offer to the Spartans." On the other hand, western leaders in particular – but also presidents Lula of Brazil, Zuma of South Africa, Calderón of Mexico and many others – were desperate for a positive outcome. Obama needed a strong deal perhaps more than anyone. The US had confirmed the offer of $100bn to developing countries for adaptation, put serious cuts on the table for the first time (17% below 2005 levels by 2020), and was obviously prepared to up its offer.

Above all, Obama needed to be able to demonstrate to the Senate that he could deliver China in any global climate regulation framework, so conservative senators could not argue that US carbon cuts would further advantage Chinese industry. With midterm elections looming, Obama and his staff also knew that Copenhagen would be probably their only opportunity to go to climate change talks with a strong mandate. This further strengthened China's negotiating hand, as did the complete lack of civil society political pressure on either China or India. Campaign groups never blame developing countries for failure; this is an iron rule that is never broken. The Indians, in particular, have become past masters at co-opting the language of equity ("equal rights to the atmosphere") in the service of planetary suicide – and leftish campaigners and commentators are hoist with their own petard.

With the deal gutted, the heads of state session concluded with a final battle as the Chinese delegate insisted on removing the 1.5C target so beloved of the small island states and low-lying nations who have most to lose from rising seas. President Nasheed of the Maldives, supported by Brown, fought valiantly to save this crucial number. "How can you ask my country to go extinct?" demanded Nasheed. The Chinese delegate feigned great offence – and the number stayed, but surrounded by language which makes it all but meaningless. The deed was done.

China's game

All this raises the question: what is China's game? Why did China, in the words of a UK-based analyst who also spent hours in heads of state meetings, "not only reject targets for itself, but also refuse to allow any other country to take on binding targets?" The analyst, who has attended climate conferences for more than 15 years, concludes that China wants to weaken the climate regulation regime now "in order to avoid the risk that it might be called on to be more ambitious in a few years' time".

This does not mean China is not serious about global warming. It is strong in both the wind and solar industries. But China's growth, and growing global political and economic dominance, is based largely on cheap coal. China knows it is becoming an uncontested superpower; indeed its newfound muscular confidence was on striking display in Copenhagen. Its coal-based economy doubles every decade, and its power increases commensurately. Its leadership will not alter this magic formula unless they absolutely have to.

Copenhagen was much worse than just another bad deal, because it illustrated a profound shift in global geopolitics. This is fast becoming China's century, yet its leadership has displayed that multilateral environmental governance is not only not a priority, but is viewed as a hindrance to the new superpower's freedom of action. I left Copenhagen more despondent than I have felt in a long time. After all the hope and all the hype, the mobilisation of thousands, a wave of optimism crashed against the rock of global power politics, fell back, and drained away.

[Apachebulldog]

Just another wank fest with the biggest delegation being the wankers from Oz.

[Psyber]

An Addendum to the issue:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/un ... 5820614171

[smac]

Just another wank fest with the biggest delegation being the wankers from Oz.

Is it true that some of that delegation were students taken over by the Govt for "a good experience" with the understanding that they were probably going to protest while there?

[Psyber]

I came across this posted on another web site:
However, I've since read a few pro-anthropomorphic forcing sites arguing that Monckton got the mathematics wrong.
Unfortunately, I don't have tertiary level Mathematics training, so I'm not sure who to believe there.

Carie␣Rannoch␣PH17 2QJ 01882 632341␣Fax 632776␣Cell 07980 634784
Monckton @ mail.com

1 January 2010

From: The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

The Honourable Mr. Kevin Rudd, Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia.

Prime Minister,
Climate change: proposed personal briefing

Your speech on 6 November 2009 to the Lowy Institute, in which you publicly expressed some concern at my approach to the climate question, has prompted several leading Australian citizens to invite me come on tour to explain myself in a series of lectures in Australia later this month. I am writing to offer personal briefings on why “global warming” is a non-problem to you and other party leaders during my visit. For convenience, I am copying this letter to them, and to the Press.

Your speech mentioned my remarks about the proposal for world “government” in the early drafts of what had been intended as a binding Copenhagen Treaty. These proposals were not, as you suggested, a “conspiracy theory” from the “far right” with “zero basis in evidence”. Your staff will find them in paragraphs 36-38 of the main text of Annex 1 to the 15 September draft of the Treaty. The word “government” appears twice at paragraph 38. After much adverse publicity in democratic countries, including Australia, the proposals were reluctantly dropped before Copenhagen.

You say I am one of “those who argue that any multilateral action is by definition evil”. On the contrary: my first question is whether any action at all is required, to which – as I shall demonstrate – the objective economic and scientific answer is No. Even if multilateral action were required, which it is not, national governments in the West are by tradition democratically elected. Therefore, a fortiori, transnational or global governments should also be made and unmade by voters at the ballot-box. The climate ought not to be used as a shoddy pretext for international bureaucratic- centralist dictatorship. We committed Europeans have had more than enough of that already with the unelected but all-powerful Kommissars of the hated EU, who make nine-tenths of our laws by decree (revealingly, they call them “Directives” or “Commission Regulations”). The Kommissars (that is the official German word for them) inflict their dictates upon us regardless of what the elected European or any other democratic Parliament says or wishes. Do we want a worldwide EU? No.

You say I am one of “those who argue that climate change does not represent a global market failure”. Yet it is only recently that opinion sufficient to constitute a market signal became apparent in the documents of the IPCC, which is, however, a political rather than a scientific entity. There has scarcely been time for a “market failure”. Besides, corporations are falling over themselves to cash in on the giant financial fraud against the little guy that carbon taxation and trading have already become in the goody-two-shoes EU – and will become in Australia if you get your way.

You say I was one of “those who argue that somehow the market will magically solve the problem”. In fact I have never argued that, though in general the market is better at solving problems than the habitual but repeatedly-failed dirigisme of the etatistes predominant in the classe politique today.

The questions I address are a) whether there is a climate problem at all; and b) even if there is one, and even if per impossibile it is of the hilariously-overblown magnitude imagined by the IPCC, whether waiting and adapting as and if necessary is more cost-effective than attempting to mitigate the supposed problem by trying to reduce the carbon dioxide our industries and enterprises emit.

Let us pretend, solum ad argumentum, that a given proportionate increase in CO2 concentration causes the maximum warming imagined by the IPCC. The IPCC’s bureaucrats are careful not to derive a function that will convert changes in CO2 concentration directly to equilibrium changes in temperature. I shall do it for them.
We derive the necessary implicit function from the IPCC’s statement to the effect that equilibrium surface warming ΔT at CO2 doubling will be (3.26 ± ln 2) C°. Since the IPCC, in compliance with Beer’s Law, defines the radiative forcing effect of CO2 as logarithmic rather than linear, our implicit function can be derived at once. The coefficient is the predicted warming at CO2 doubling divided by the logarithm of 2, and the term (C/C0) is the proportionate increase in CO2 concentration. Thus,
ΔT = (4.7 ± 1) ln(C/C0) |Celsius degrees

We are looking at the IPCC’s maximum imagined warming rate, so we simply write – ΔT = 5.7 ln(C/C0)|Celsius degrees
Armed with this function telling us the maximum equilibrium warming that the IPCC predicts from any given change in CO2 concentration, we can now determine, robustly, the maximum equilibrium warming that is likely to be forestalled by any proposed cut in the current upward path of CO2 emissions. Let me demonstrate.

By the end of this month, according to the Copenhagen Accord, all parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change are due to report what cuts in emissions they will make by 2020. Broadly speaking, the Annex 1 parties, who will account for about half of global emissions over the period, will commit to reducing current emissions by 30% by 2020, or 15% on average in the decade between now and 2020.

Thus, if and only if every Annex 1 party to the Copenhagen Accord complies with its obligations to the full, today’s emissions will be reduced by around half of that 15%, namely 7.5%, compared with business as usual. If the trend of the past decade continues, with business as usual we shall add 2 ppmv/year, or 20 ppmv over the decade, to atmospheric CO2 concentration. Now, 7.5% of 20 ppmv is 1.5 ppmv.

We determine the warming forestalled over the coming decade by comparing the business-as-usual warming that would occur between now and 2020 if we made no cuts in CO2 emissions with the lesser warming that would follow full compliance with the Copenhagen Accord.

Where today’s CO2 concentration is 388 ppmv :
Business as usual: ΔT = 5.7 ln(408.0/388) = 0.29 C°
– Copenhagen Accord: ΔT = 5.7 ln(406.5/388) = 0.27 C°
=“Global warming” forestalled, 2010-2020: 0.02 C°

One-fiftieth of a Celsius degree of warming forestalled is all that complete, global compliance with the Copenhagen Accord for an entire decade would achieve. Yet the cost of achieving this result – an outcome so small that our instruments would not be able to measure it – would run into trillions of dollars. Do your Treasury models demonstrate that this calculation is in any way erroneous? If they do, junk them.

You say “formal global and national economic modelling” shows “that the costs of inaction are greater than the costs of acting”. You ask for my “equivalent evidence basis to Treasury modelling published by the Government of the industry and employment impacts of climate change”. I respond that the rigorous calculation that I have described, which your officials may verify for themselves, shows that whatever costs may be imagined to flow from anthropogenic “global warming” will scarcely be mitigated at all, even by trillions of dollars of expenditure over the coming decade.

Every economic analysis except that of the now-discredited Lord Stern, with its near- zero discount rate and its absurdly inflated warming rates, comes to the same ineluctable conclusion: adaptation to climate change, in whatever direction, as and if necessary, is orders of magnitude more cost-effective than attempts at mitigation. In a long career in policy analysis in and out of government, I have never seen so cost- ineffective a proposed waste of taxpayers’ money as the trillions which today’s scientifically-illiterate governments propose to spend on attempting – with all the plausibility of King Canute – to stop the tide from coming in.

Remember that I have done this calculation on the basis that everyone who should comply with the Copenhagen Accord actually does comply. Precedent does not look promising. The Kyoto Protocol, the Copenhagen Accord’s predecessor, has been in operation for more than a decade, and it was supposed to reduce global CO2 emissions by 2012. So far, after billions spent on global implementation of Kyoto, global CO2 emissions have risen compared with when Kyoto was first signed.
Remember too that we have assumed the maximum warming that the CO2 imagines might occur in response to a given proportionate increase in CO2 concentration. Yet even the IPCC’s central estimate of CO2’s warming effect, according to an increasing number of serious papers in the peer-reviewed literature, is a five-fold exaggeration. If those papers are right, after a further decade of incomplete compliance and billions squandered, warming forestalled may prove to be just a thousandth of a degree.

Now ask yourself this. Are you, personally, and your advisers, personally, and your administration’s officials, personally, willing to make the heroically pointless sacrifices that you so insouciantly demand of others in the name of Saving The Planet For Future Generations? I beg leave to think not. At Flag 1 I have attached what I have reason to believe is a generally accurate list of the names and titles of the delegation that you led to Copenhagen to bring back the non-result whose paltriness, pointlessness and futility we have now rigorously demonstrated. There are 114 names on the list. One hundred and fourteen. Enough to fill a mid-sized passenger jet. Half a dozen were all that was really necessary – and perhaps one from each State in Australia. If you and your officials are not willing to tighten your belts when a tempting foreign junket at taxpayers’ expense is in prospect, why, pray, should the taxpayers tighten theirs?

You say that climate-change “deniers” – nasty word, that, and you should really have known better than to use it – are “small in number but too dangerous to be ignored”, and “well resourced”. In fact, governments, taxpayer-funded organizations, taxpayer- funded teachers, and taxpayer-funded environmental groups have spent something like 50,000 times as much on “global warming” propaganda as their opponents have spent on debunking this new and cruel superstition. And that is before we take account of the relentless prejudice of the majority of the mainstream news media.

How, then, it is that we, the supposed minority who will not admit that the emperor of “global warming” is adequately clad, are somehow prevailing? How is it that we are convincing more and more of the population not to place any more trust in the “global warming” theory? The answer is that the “global warming” theory is not true, and no amount of bluster or braggadocio, ranting or rodomontade will make it true.

You say that our aim, in daring to oppose the transient fashion for apocalypticism, is “to erode just enough of the political will that action becomes impossible”. No. Our aim is simply to ensure that the truth is widely enough understood to prevent the squandering of precious resources on addressing the non-problem of anthropogenic “global warming”. The correct policy response to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing. No interventionist likes to do nothing. Nevertheless, the do- nothing option, scientifically and economically speaking, is the right option.
You say that I and others like me base our thinking on the notion that “the cost of not acting is nothing”. Well, after a decade and a half with no statistically-significant “global warming”, and after three decades in which the mean warming rate has been well below the ever-falling predictions of the UN’s climate panel, that notion has certainly not been disproven in reality.

However, the question I address is not that but this. Is the cost of taking action many times greater than the cost of not acting? The answer to this question is Yes.
Millions are already dying of starvation in the world’s poorest nations because world food prices have doubled in two years. That abrupt, vicious doubling was caused by a sharp drop in world food production, caused in turn by suddenly taking millions of acres of land out of growing food for people who need it, so as to grow biofuels for clunkers that don’t. The scientifically-illiterate, economically-innumerate policies that you advocate – however fashionable you may conceive them to be – are killing people by the million.

You say my logic “belongs in a casino, not a science lab”. Yet it is you who are gambling with poor people’s lives, and it is you – or, rather, they – who are losing: and losing not merely their substance but their very existence. The biofuel scam is born of the idiotic notion – a notion you uncritically espouse – that increasing by less than 1/2000 this century the proportion of the Earth’s atmosphere occupied by CO2 may prove catastrophic. At a time when so many of the world’s people are already short of food, the UN’s right-to-food rapporteur, Herr Ziegler, has roundly and rightly condemned the biofuel scam as nothing less than “a crime against humanity”.

The scale of the slaughter is monstrous, with food riots (largely unreported in the Western news media, and certainly not mentioned by you in your recent speech) in a dozen regions of the Third World over the past two years. Yet this cruel, unheeded slaughter is founded upon a lie: the claim by the IPCC that it is 90% certain that most of the “global warming” since 1950 is manmade. This claim – based not on science but on a show of hands among political representatives, with China wanting a lower figure and other nations wanting a higher figure – is demonstrably, self-servingly false. Peer-reviewed analyses of changes in cloud cover over recent decades – changes almost entirely unconnected with changes in CO2 concentration – show that it was this largely-natural reduction in cloud cover from 1983-2001 and a consequent increase in the amount of short-wave and UV solar radiation reaching the Earth that accounted for five times as much warming as CO2 could have caused.

Nor is the IPCC’s great lie the only lie. If you will allow me to brief you and your advisers, I will show you lie after lie after lie after lie in the official documents of the IPCC and in the speeches of its current chairman, who has made himself a multi- millionaire as a “global warming” profiteer.

However, if you will not make the time to hear me for half an hour before you commit your working people to the futile indignity of excessive taxation and pointless over-regulation without the slightest scientific or economic justification, and to outright confiscation of their farmland without compensation on the fatuous pretext that the land is a “carbon sink”, then I hope that you will at least nominate one of the scientists on your staff to address the two central issues that I have raised in this letter: namely, the egregious cost-ineffectiveness of attempting to mitigate “global warming” by emissions reduction, and the measured fact, well demonstrated in the scientific literature, that a largely-natural change in cloud cover in recent decades caused five times as much “global warming” as CO2. It is also a measured fact that, while those of the UN’s computer models that can be forced with an increase in sea-surface temperatures all predict a consequent fall in the flux of outgoing radiation at top of atmosphere, in observed reality there is an increase. In short, the radiation that is supposed to be trapped here in the troposphere to cause “global warming” is measured as escaping to space much as usual, so that it cannot be causing more than around one-fifth of the warming the IPCC predicts.
My list of the Copenhagen junketers from Australia’s governing class is attached. All those taxpayer dollars squandered, just to forestall 0.02 C° of “global warming” in ten years. Yet, in the past decade and a half, there has been no “global warming” at all. Can you not see that it would be kinder to your working people to wait another decade and see whether global temperatures even begin to respond as the IPCC has predicted? What is the worst that can happen if you wait? Just 0.02 C° of global warming that would not otherwise have occurred. It’s a no-brainer.

Yours faithfully,

VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY


THE RUDD GOVERNMENT’S COPENHAGEN JUNKET LIST
December 2009
The following 114 officials or representatives of the Australian Government and of State administrations attended the UN climate conference at Copenhagen in December 2009 –
1. Kevin Michael Rudd, Prime Minister 2. Penelope Wong, Minister, Clim. Chg. & Water 3. Louise Helen Hand, Ambassador for Clim. Chg. 4. David Fredericks, Dep. Chf. of Staff, Dept. of the Prime Minister 5. Philip Green Oam, Sen. Policy Advr., Foreign Affairs Dept. 6. Andrew Charlton, Sen. Advr., Prime Minister’s Dept. 7. Lachlan Harris, Sen. Press Sec., Prime Minister’s Office 8. Scott Dewar, Sen. Advr., Prime Minister’s Office 9. Clare Penrose, Advr., Prime Minister’s Office 10. Fiona Sugden, Media Advr., Prime Minister’s Office 11. Lisa French, Prime Minister’s Office 12. Jeremy Hilman, Advr., Prime Minister’s Office 13. Tarah Barzanji, Advr., Prime Minister’s Office 14. Kate Shaw, Exec. Sec., Prime Minister’s Office 15. Gaile Barnes, Exec. Asst., Prime Minister’s Office 16. Gordon de Brouwer, Dep. Sec. Prime Minister’s Dept. 17. Patrick Suckling, 1st Asst. Sec., Intl. Div., Prime Minister’s Office 18. Rebecca Christie, Prime Minister’s Office 19. Michael Jones, Official Photographer, Prime Minister & Cabinet 20. Stephan Rudzki 21. David Bell, Federal Agent, Aus. Federal Police 22. Kym Baillie, Aus. Federal Police 23. David Champion, Aus. Federal Police 24. Matt Jebb, Federal Agent Aus. Federal Police 25. Craig Kendall, Federal Agent, Aus. Federal Police 26. Squadron Leader Ian Lane, Staff Offr., VIP Operations 27. John Olenich, Media Advr., to Minister Wong, Office of Clim. Chg. & Water 28. Kristina Hickey, Advr. to Minister Wong, Office of Clim. Chg. & Water 29. Martin Parkinson, Sec., Dept. of Clim. Chg. 30. Howard Bamsey, Special Envoy for Clim. Chg., Dept. of Clim. Chg. 31. Robert Owen-Jones, Asst. Sec., Intl. Div., Dept. of Clim. Chg. 32. Clare Walsh Asst. Sec., Intl. Div., Dept. of Clim. Chg. 33. Jenny Elizabeth Wilkinson, Policy Advr., Dept. of Clim. Chg. 34. Elizabeth Peak, Princ. Legal Advr., Intl. Clim. Law, Dept. of Clim. Chg. 35. Kristin Tilley, Dir., Multilat. Negots., Intl. Div., Dept. of Clim. Chg. 36. Andrew Ure, Actg. Dir., Multilat. Negots., Intl. Div., Dept. of Clim. Chg. 37. Annemarie Watt, Dir., Land Sector Negots., Intl. Div., Dept. of Clim. Chg. 38. Kushla Munro, Dir., Intl. Forest Carbon Sectn. Intl. Div., Dept. of Clim. Chg. 39. Kathleen Annette Rowley, Dir., Strategic & Tech. Analysis, Dept. of Clim. Chg. 40. Anitra Cowan Asst. Dir., Multilat. Negots., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
41. Sally Truong, Asst. Dir., Multilat. Negots., Intl. Div. Dept. of Clim. Chg. 42. Jane Wilkinson, Asst. Dir., Dept. of Clim. Chg. 43. Tracey Mackay, Asst. Dir., Intl. Div., Dept. of Clim. Chg. 44. Laura Brown, Asst. Dir., Multilat. Negots., Intl. Div., Dept. of Clim. Chg. 45. Tracey-Anne Leahey, Delegation Mgr., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
46. Nicola Loffler, Sen. Legal Advr., Intl. Clim. Law, Dept. of Clim. Chg. 47. Tamara Curll, Legal Advr., Intl. Clim. Law, Dept. of Clim. Chg. 48. Jessica Allen, Legal Support Offr., Dept. of Clim. Chg. 49. Sanjiva de Silva, Legal Advr., Intl. Clim. Law, Dept. of Clim. Chg. 50. Gaia Puleston, Political Advr., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
51. Penelope Morton, Policy Advr., UNFCCC Negots., Intl. Div., Dept. of Clim. Chg. 52. Claire Elizabeth Watt, Policy Advr., Dept. of Clim. Chg. 53. Amanda Walker, Policy Offr., Multilat. Negots., Dept. of Clim. Chg. 54. Alan David Lee, Policy Advr., Land Sector Negots., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
55. Erika Kate Oord, Aus. Stakeholder Mgr., Dept. of Clim. Chg. 56. Jahda Kirian Swanborough, Comms. Mgr., Ministerial Comms., Dept. of Clim. Chg. 57. H.E. Sharyn Minahan, Ambassador, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK 58. Julia Feeney, Dir., Clim. Chg. & Envir., Dept. of Foreign Affairs & Trade 59. Chester Geoffrey Cunningham, 2nd Sec., DFAT, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to Germany 60. Rachael Cooper, Exec. Offr., Clim. Chg. & Envir., Dept. of Foreign Affairs & Trade 61. Rachael Grivas, Exec. Offr., Envir. Branch, Dept. of Foreign Affairs & Trade 62. Moya Collett, Desk Offr., Clim. Chg. & Envir. Sectn., Dept. of Foreign Affairs & Trade 63. Rob Law, Dept. of Foreign Affairs & Trade 64. Robin Davies, Asst. Dir. Gen., Sustainable Devel. Gp., Aus. Agency for Intl. Devel. 65. Deborah Fulton, Dir., Policy & Global Envir., Aus. Agency for Intl. Devel. 66. Katherine Vaughn, Policy Advr., Policy & Global Envir., Aus. Agency for Intl. Devel. 67. Brian Dawson, Policy Advr., Aus. Agency for Intl. Devel. 68. Andrew Leigh Clarke, Dep. Sec., Dept. of Res. Devel., Western Aus. 69. Bruce Wilson, Gen. Mgr., Envir. Energy & Envir. Div., Dept. of Resrc. Devel., W. Aus. 70. Jill McCarthy, Policy Advr., Dept. of Resrc., Energy & Tourism 71. Simon French, Policy Advr., Dept. of Agriculture, Fisheries & Forestry 72. Ian Michael Ruscoe, Policy Advr., Dept. of Agriculture, Fisheries & Forestry 73. David Walland, Acting Supt., Nat. Clim. Centre, Bureau of Meteorology 74. Damien Dunn Sen. Policy Advr., Aus. Treasury 75. Helen Hawka Fuhrman, Policy Offr., Renewable Energy Policy & Partnerships 76. Scott Vivian Davenport, Chf., Economics, NSW Dept. of Industry & Invest. 77. Graham Julian Levitt, Policy Mgr., Clim. Chg., NSW Dept. of Industry & Invest. 78. Kate Jennifer Jones, Minister, Clim. Chg. & Sustainability, Qld. Govt. 79. Michael William Dart, Princ. Policy Advr., Office of Kate Jones, MP, Qld. Govt. 80. Matthew Anthony Jamie Skoien, Sen. Dir., Office of Clim. Chg. Qld. Govt. 81. Michael David Rann, Premier, S. Aus. Dept. of Premier & Cabinet, S. Aus. 82. Suzanne Kay Harter, Advr., Dept. of Premier & Cabinet, S. Aus. 83. Paul David Flanagan, Mgr., Comms., Govt. of S. Aus. 84. Timothy O’Loughlin, Dep. Chf. Exec., Sust. & Wkfc. Mgmt., S. Aus. Dept. of Premier 85. Nyla Sarwar M.Sc, student, Linacre College, University of Oxford 86. Gavin Jennings, Minister, Envir. & Clim. Chg. & Innovation, Victorian Govt. 87. Sarah Broadbent, Sustainability Advr. 88. Rebecca Falkingham, Sen. Advr., Victoria Govt./Office of Clim. Chg.
89. Simon Camroux, Policy Advr., Energy Supply Ass. of Aus. Ltd. 90. Geoff Lake, Advr., Aus. Local Govt. Ass. 91. Sridhar Ayyalaraju, Post Visit Controller, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK 92. Tegan Brink Dep. Visit Controller & Security Liaison Offr., Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK 93. Melissa Eu Suan Goh, Trspt. Liaison Offr. & Consul, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
94. Lauren Henschke, Support Staff, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK 95. Maree Fay, Accommodation Liaison Offr., Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK 96. Patricia McKinnon, Comms. Offr., Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK 97. Eugene Olim, Passport/Baggage Liaison Offr., Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK 98. Belinda Lee Adams 99. Jacqui Ashworth, Media Liaison Offr., Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
100. Patricia Smith, Media Liaison Offr., Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK 101. Martin Bo Jensen, Research & Public Dipl. Offr., Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK 102. Mauro Kolobaric, Consular Support, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK 103. Susan Flanagan, Consular Support, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK 104. Stephen Kanaridis, IT Support Offr., Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK 105. George Reid, Support Staff, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK 106. Ashley Wright, Support Staff, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK 107. Jodie Littlewood, Support Staff, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK 108. Thomas Millhouse, Support Staff, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK 109. Timothy Whittley, Support Staff Driver, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK 110. Julia Thomson, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK 111. Donald Frater, Chf. of Staff to Minister Wong Office of Clim. Chg. & Water 112. Jacqui Smith, Media Liaison, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK 113. Greg French, Sen. Legal Advr. (Envir.), Dept. of Foreign Affairs & Trade 114. Jeremy Hillman, Advr., Prime Minister’s Office
_________________

[Gozu]

"Viscount Monckton of Brenchley's over-egged CV":

"Lord Monckton concedes that he is used to looking like “an absolute prat”, which explains why in Britain moderate conservatives keep their distance. The Spectator’s Rod Liddle — himself sceptical about global warming — describes him as “a swivel-eyed maniac”."

http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/01/12/ham ... -egged-cv/

[fish]

Psyber = Lord Monckton?

[Psyber]

:-? Psyber = Lord Monckton?

Hey, I expressed doubt about his mathematics when I posted his statement..

[Gozu]

"Monckton's Melbourne meeting: A gathering of men in Richie Benaud blazers":

"The LaRouchie thought for a moment and then he brightened. “Perhaps he’s an agent,” he said. “Prince Philip has agents all over the world, you know.”

http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/02/04/mon ... d-blazers/

[Jimmy_041]

I still find it outstanding that anyone that questions the extent of the supposed science of climate change is labelled as a looney whereas there is proof of manipulation and absolute bullshit in the pro argument.

I'm quite happy to hear both sides of the story and then make my own mind up

Why does everyone want to belittle a balancing argument?

[mick]

I still find it outstanding that anyone that questions the extent of the supposed science of climate change is labelled as a looney whereas there is proof of manipulation and absolute bullshit in the pro argument.

I'm quite happy to hear both sides of the story and then make my own mind up

Why does everyone want to belittle a balancing argument?

Global warming has become a quasi religious crusade for some, that's why. Unfortunately religion can be used to justify any lie or any crime. There is no doubt global warming is happening, whether human activity is influencing it is still unclear.

[fish]

Global warming has become a quasi religious crusade for some, that's why. Unfortunately religion can be used to justify any lie or any crime. There is no doubt global warming is happening, whether human activity is influencing it is still unclear.

Agree about the religious analogy mick - on the one hand you have rational science with its clear conclusions that climate change is happening and that it is greatly exacerbated by human activity. On the other hand you have the deniers who religiously, despite all the science and evidence to the contrary, hold onto the belief that it is either not happening or if it is then it must be natural and no fault of humans.

[Psyber]

Global warming has become a quasi religious crusade for some, that's why. Unfortunately religion can be used to justify any lie or any crime. There is no doubt global warming is happening, whether human activity is influencing it is still unclear.

Agree about the religious analogy mick - on the one hand you have rational science with its clear conclusions that climate change is happening and that it is greatly exacerbated by human activity. On the other hand you have the deniers who religiously, despite all the science and evidence to the contrary, hold onto the belief that it is either not happening or if it is then it must be natural and no fault of humans.

The emboldened bit is what is in dispute and boils down to a division of religious faith at present.
There is solid scientific evidence of long term patterns based on both solar activity and ice core data going back a long way.
By contrast the meteorological data suggesting this is a new phenomenon only dates back to about 1890.
Presumably, your dogma set prevented you reading the references I posted for you in another thread some time ago, referring to the Milankovitch cycles and the ice core data.
These are background science not just the opinions of current "deniers", and will assist you in thinking for yourself.

Here they are again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
http://muller.lbl.gov/papers/lbl-35665.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core

[Jimmy_041]

The consistent things about science is inconsistency and disagreement and a sometimes a fervent group who are prepared to blindy defend their opinion to the point of attack of the opposing opinion.

Only debate and rigorous questioning of the opposing arguments will reveal the most probable answer - not abuse