Thursday, March 20, 2014

Déjà Vu All Over Again: UN Climate Talks In Bonn Fail

The latest round of UN Climate Talks in Bonn have failed with the usual lack of trust between the parties.

The UN Climate Circus met in Bonn, Germany last week, though with the exception of dedicated Green news outlets and blogs the whole event passed with no main stream media attention, such is the state of global warming fear fatigue these days.

The divisions are along the usual lines of who will cut emissions and by how much, the lack of contributions from the so called rich countries to the Green Climate Fund and Loss and Damage, more commonly known as wealth redistribution.

Loss and Damage was the reason that COP19 was dead in the water, even before it had started. Barack Obama instructed US Climate Envoys prior to COP19 that giving away trillions of dollars for years to pay for the guilt of being an industrialized nation would not “float with the voters.”

A few months on little has changed as the latest round of UN climate talks achieved nothing:

Levels of trust between leading developing countries and the USA and EU member states appears to have hit a new low after a week of UN climate talks in Bonn.

India, China and 24 other countries in the Like-Minded Developing Countries (LDMC) group say the brunt of greenhouse gas cuts must be made by industrialised countries.

The US, EU and Switzerland say the global climate deal scheduled to be agreed in Paris next year will only work if all countries make commitments, which they say was agreed in 2011 in Durban.

The problem with who cuts CO2 emissions goes like this, the LDMC group say that the countries who have historically emitted the most CO2 must bear the brunt of emissions reductions, other factions including the industrialized world say the cuts must be based on current CO2 emissions.

The objective of the Bonn meeting was to do ground work on how a Climate deal at COP21 Paris in 2015 could work, instead the meeting quickly broke down into fractious exchanges between delegates.

Switzerland’s Ambassador for the Environment Franz Perrez told RTCC “dogmatic views such as all Annexe 2 have to pay, and it’s only them to have to pay” are preventing the talks from progressing.

He said climate vulnerable countries such as the Philippines should disassociate themselves with the LDMC group, which he accused of trying to slow the talks.

Perrez said: “I do not understand, if you look at what the position of the Philippines should be, they should not defend the interest of China, of India, of Singapore, of Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, so it’s surprising how they are arguing in favour of maintaining a regime that is not in their advantage.”

The UN backed Green Climate Fund (GCF) is still struggling for money and there is a GCF board meeting scheduled for May to decide how to distribute the money, always assuming that the GCF board members have decided whether to fly First or Business Class to Bali for the meeting.

The delivery of extra flows of finance – long the subject of bitter exchanged between countries – is likely to depend on when the UN-backed Green Climate Fund comes online.

In 2009 rich nations committed to supplying $100 billion a year by 2020, and delivered $30 billion between 2010-2012.

The world is a far apart as ever, a fact we should all be thankful for, from agreeing a climate deal that would spell disaster for civilization as we know it.

Heads of state in the democratic industrialized world know that they can never sell the idea to voters of declining living standards and giving away billions of pounds, dollars, euros et al to the developing world.

Little wonder then that the head of the UNFCCC, Christiana Figueres thinks that dictatorship and communism are the best forms of government to force Agenda 21 through.


John Podesta Pushes Back on Environmentalists

When President Barack Obama hired John Podesta, an outspoken environmentalist who opposes the Keystone XL pipeline, as his special adviser late last year, many environmentalists anticipated that they were getting a strong ally in the West Wing.

Maybe so. But on Wednesday, Mr. Podesta showed that he’s not afraid to push back at environmental groups when he feels they’re going too far.

“If you oppose all fossil fuels and you want to turn fossil fuels off tomorrow, that’s a completely impractical way to move toward a clean-energy future,” Mr. Podesta said at a briefing with reporters on a climate data initiative. His comments came in response to questions about a letter that 17 environmental groups sent to Mr. Obama on Tuesday urging him to oppose the exports of natural gas to other countries.

“With all due respect to my friends in the environmental community, if they expect us to turn off the lights and go home, that’s an impractical suggestion,” he said.

This isn’t the first time Mr. Podesta has tangled with environmental groups over climate change. Earlier this year he questioned a letter sent from a broader set of environmental groups urging the administration to drop its “all of the above” energy strategy that embraces fossil fuels.

The latest conflict is more focused on natural gas, specifically exporting it. The Tuesday letter was organized in part by the Sierra Club and, two groups integral in the fight against Keystone XL pipeline, who are opposed to an export facility in Maryland. They asked the administration to conduct a broader review of it.

While rebuffing the opponents of natural gas, though, Mr. Podesta also said the administration was close to finalizing rules for controlling methane—a greenhouse gas that comes from natural-gas emissions.

“We are in the throes of finalizing a methane strategy across the government,” Mr. Podesta said to reporters in a roundtable meeting at the White House. “You can expect an announcement in the not too distant future.” He didn’t elaborate more on details of the strategy. Mr. Obama first announced the intent to create such a strategy at his climate-change speech in June.

Mr. Podesta’s dual comments showed the White House’s efforts to thread the needle on natural gas by embracing its use while also regulating its emissions. It is the cleanest-burning fossil fuel, emitting 50% less carbon than coal and 30% less that of oil and has helped the country cut its greenhouse-gas emissions to levels not seen the 1990s. But the primary component of the fuel—methane—is a greenhouse gas at least 25 times more potent than carbon, meaning its impact warming the planet’s atmosphere occurs in a shorter time frame than carbon.

As the country’s production of natural gas has soared to record levels in the past few years, environmental scrutiny of the fuel has similarly risen. Environmentalists are worried that too much methane is inadvertently being released during the production and transmission of the fuel. Comprehensive, up-to-date data on just how much methane is leaking is lagging, which feeds the conflict.

“The [methane] emissions are definitely big enough to be worth reducing, but they’re not big enough to [negate] the advantage of natural gas over coal as a way to generate electricity,” said John Holdren, the director of the White House’s office of science and technology.

The Environmental Protection Agency in 2012 finalized air-pollution standards that indirectly cuts methane emissions, but no federal rule exists that targets methane specifically. Mr. Podesta did say that earlier on Wednesday he attended a meeting hosted by Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz on this issue, which included participants from both energy industry and the environmental community.

“We remain committed to developing the resource and using it, and we think there is an advantage, particularly in the electricity generation,” said Mr. Podesta, who founded and was previously chair of the liberal think tank Center for American Progress. He said Wednesday he spends about 50% of his time on climate issues.


Rich ‘Greens’ Spend Liberally to Kill Hated Fossil Fuels

"Climate change" historically polls very low, so the Republicans seem not to have noticed that an attack on the American energy revolution is going to be a hot political issue in at least the 2014 elections and probably 2016 as well.

Liberal activist groups have noticed, though, and are raising money, flexing for a game of hardball, already sitting on a win, and setting their sights on a complete victory.

In mid-February, billionaire and major Democratic National Committee donor Tom Steyer held a dinner at his palatial San Francisco home for 70 of his closest friends.

Former Vice President Al Gore was the headliner, and in attendance were Democratic Sens. Harry Reid of Nevada, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Benjamin L. Cardin of Maryland and Mark Udall of Colorado.

Also present was Democratic Rep. Gary Peters, who is running for an open Senate seat in Michigan. League of Conservation Voters President Gene Karpinski and former Sierra Club President Carl Pope circulated among the guests. The event raised more than $400,000 for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

February was a busy month for Mr. Steyer. Early on, he held a similar event for other Democrat high rollers at his ranch in Pescadero, Calif. The New York Times published a long feature on Mr. Steyer that appeared above the fold on the front page.

National Public Radio broadcast an interview, and the usual liberal publications such as Politico ran features on him and his plans.

What has everyone's attention is this number: $100 million. Mr. Steyer has announced that he intends to put $50 million of his own money into Democrats' races in 2014 and has challenged his fellow deep-pocket liberals to match it with an additional $50 million of their own.

His issue is "climate change," which conservatives correctly recognize as the suppression of fossil-fuel production, particularly shale oil.

Mr. Steyer has certainly demonstrated that he can put his money where his mouth is. With an estimated family wealth of at least $1.5 billion, he has long been a generous donor to liberal and Democratic Party causes.

A short surf through the Federal Election Commission website reveals more than $1.1 million of soft-money donations in his own name to liberal groups, and page after page of direct contributions to individual Democratic candidates and Democratic Party organizations adding up to almost another million dollars.

Other Steyer family members living in the San Francisco Bay area, including his older brother James, seem to be almost as generous. Counting the soft-money and the hard-money campaign contributions from the Steyer family that we know about, it would certainly add up to high tens of millions of dollars at least.


U.S. Winters Cooling

It's been a brutal winter for many, and winter refuses to loosen its grip on a good chunk of the country even as spring rapidly approaches. But despite what climate alarmists want you to believe, this season's bone-chilling cold wasn't and isn't some fluke; in fact, according to Meteorologist Joe D'Aleo, average temperatures across the United States in the December-February period have dropped by 2.26 degrees Fahrenheit over the last two decades based on data from the National Climate Data Center. This occurred despite some notably warm winters. Call us crazy, but that sure doesn't sound like global warming to us; in fact, Earth as a whole hasn't experienced any warming for more than 17 years. No wonder they're now calling it "climate change."

Here is the CONUS trend for the last 20 years, down 2.26F (1.13F per decade). This is the trend from NCDC for the period 1995-2014. The base period is the conventional last 3 complete decades -1981-2010


Britain To Freeze Carbon Tax As Energy Cost Becomes Biggest Worry For Voters

It is being widely predicted that George Osborne may decide to abandon any further increases in the Carbon Price Floor, introduced in April 2013. [Now confirmed]

Any freeze in the tax could cut as much as £50 from consumer bills by 2020.

Meanwhile, a BBC survey has suggested that energy bills are the biggest worry for households.

The Carbon Price Floor (CPF) is designed to penalise companies who create pollution, and to encourage investment in green energy.

The merits of freezing the tax have been advocated by an unusual array of allies, including the CBI, manufacturers' organisation the EEF, energy suppliers and consumer groups including Which? and Consumer Futures.

However, those in favour of more investment in green energy are likely to be disappointed. Environmentalists say it could mean fewer wind turbines or solar farms being constructed.

The Carbon Price Floor (CPF) ensures that polluters pay a minimum price for the gas or fossil fuels they burn.  In effect, it is a surcharge on the European Emissions Trading Scheme (EETS), which was designed to tax polluters across the EU.

However, the market price of the right to emit carbon has fallen so much that the EETS is no longer as strong a disincentive to pollute as it was.

But the implementation of the CPF has left many big British companies paying more in tax than their counterparts elsewhere in the EU.

Last year, the CPF added £5 to a typical UK energy bill, according to the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC).

But as the tax is due to be ramped up over the next few years, so too is the contribution from consumers.

"The Carbon Price Floor is set to become a bigger and unnecessary burden on struggling consumers in coming years and we think it should be scrapped," said Richard Lloyd, the executive director of Which?

A BBC survey, meanwhile, has suggested that energy bills are the top worry for consumers.

The survey, conducted by ComRes for BBC Breakfast, concluded that more people worry about paying utility bills or council tax than any other household expenditure.

The cost of food came second, with the cost of petrol and diesel in third place.

More than a quarter of people questioned said their financial situation was causing them stress.


Prominent Australian Warmist under attack

Aussie skeptics say they have one of their nation’s top climate alarmist professors cornered in an ongoing battle of words over who holds the high ground on scientific integrity. Scientist, Dr Judy Ryan and her colleague, Dr Marjory Curtis are going public with a series of damning emails they’ve had with government-backed promoters of fears about man-made global warming.

Their latest target is Professor David Karoly, a climatologist who they claim dishonestly championed a government campaign to depict human carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions as black smoke, contrary to scientific fact.

Dr Ryan reports, “On 18th February 2014 I sent an email to David Karoly with Marjory Curtis, a retired geologist, as my co-signer. Approximately 180 australian and overseas media outlets, politicians, universities, including their student newspapers, and prominent climate hysteria mongers were openly copied in.”

Ryan and Curtis are among many highly-qualified scientists who, as skeptics of the wrong-headed hysteria over supposed man-made global warming, are fighting to restore scientific integrity.

Dr Curtis says Karoly’s “error” over the CO2 as black smoke “may have been a fortuitous oversight” for the cause of alarmists who some say are trying to dupe the public on the issue.

Judy Curtis has advised Karoly all the correspondence, because of its significance to public policy, will be published as open letters. She says, “We replied 21st February and added in our fellow skeptics. So there are now close to 220 observers for Karoly’s next response. To date we have not heard back, but it is early days yet.”

The first letter and Karoly’s immediate response are below.

As with many independent scientists frustrated with the apparent bias of government climatologists, Ryan understands that such public emails are becoming a powerful tool and she provides many helpful tips on how to formulate and send them. She tells readers “Feel free to copy, paste and use  them, and if you have questions you only need to ask.”

18th February 2014

Dear Professor Karoly,

We have been writing to you for a year requesting that you provide one credible study that supports your hypothesis of catastrophic, human caused global warming (CAGW). You have not been able to provide one. The  letters and your responses are all on the public record

In March 2013 we issued you the opportunity to either renounce your alarmist claims on the ABC news, or publicly provide empirical data-based evidence, that is available for scientific scrutiny, to support them.

Almost a year has passed and still you have not provided the evidence.

We remind you that the Australian people are experiencing financial disadvantage as a result of the host of policies and administrative decisions driven by advice regarding the science of climate change. Is that advice false or misleading? Does it deceive by concealing or omitting or embellishing or misrepresenting relevant facts?

 The definition of fraud is, according to Black’s Law Dictionary, quote: “a false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury.”

According to Malcolm Roberts author of the CSIROh! report , you are prominently involved in many taxpayer-funded climate bodies fomenting unfounded climate alarm. One of your roles is that you are Editor-In-Chief of the Bureau of Meteorology’s (BOM’s) in-house journal. On page 10 of his report’s Appendix 7, Malcolm Roberts cites Peter Bobroff’s analysis, quote: “Publishing the research. The Bureau of Meteorology has its own in-house journal: the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Journal (prev Aust. Meteorol. Mag.). The editor-in-chief responsible for the defence of the scientific method, elimination of all types of bias, automatic release of all relevant data and code is none other than David Karoly – the strident proponent of human causation of future catastrophic global warming. The BOM itself has taken a strong partisan position on the subject.”

Despite your BOM responsibilities, Malcolm Roberts adds, quote: “Yet David Karoly has repeatedly publicly contradicted empirical scientific evidence”.

According to their website you also appear to be BOM’s principal author. Graphs on the following pages were obtained or produced by various independents non-aligned examiners and auditors of BOM records. Are you are the author of the original regional temperature data or graphs used by BOM?

Every graph shows that the raw data, which shows either a flat or downward (cooling) trend has been “adjusted” to a warming trend.  Are you are associated in any way with producing BOM’s adjusted graphs? If so, in our opinion it is very misleading of both you and the BOM personnel to adjust the data to the extent that it misrepresents reality. We also think that it is very misleading of both you and BOM  to omit to declare to the Australian people  that you have “adjusted” the raw data.

Under Australia’s strong democracy no one is above the law. Judges, politicians, scientists, academics, senior public servants, and managing directors can be held to account for breaching their fiduciary duty.

It seems that you have prominent roles across many taxpayer-funded entities promoting unfounded and unscientific claims of anthropogenic global warming and contradicting empirical scientific evidence. Your many prominent roles place you at the hub of the web of such agencies. You have thereby positioned yourself perfectly for answering our fundamental and straight-forward questions. As taxpayers and concerned scientists we look forward to your evidence based response. It is not a good look if you do not acknowledge this very public letter.

In closing, if there is anything we have said that you think is untrue please click reply all and let us know and we will apologise.

Dr Judy Ryan

Dr Marjorie Curtis

David Karoly clicked “Reply All” and sent this email within 24 hours.

On 19 Feb 2014, at 6:11 am, David John Karoly wrote:

Hi Judy,

It's interesting to receive another of your emails as they keep me amused.

If you are so convinced that I have committed fraud, I recommend that you pass the evidence to my employer, the University of Melbourne; the major funder of my research, the Australian Research Council, and to the police. In the past, your claims have been considered and dismissed, as have those from Malcolm Roberts. I am sure that you will find that further evidence of a conspiracy.

All the evidence of the human causes of global warming is assessed thoroughly in the 5th assessment report of the IPCC, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, available at

The specific chapter on human causation, Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: from Global to Regional

 Is available at

No doubt you will again refuse to accept this evidence.

I have no idea what you mean when you state "you also appear to be BOM’s principal author".

I am not "the author of the original regional temperature data or graphs used by BOM".

I recommend that you contact the Bureau of Meteorology or look carefully at their web site for the sources of their data and the reasons for the adjustments to minimise inhomogeneities.

As always, I keep your emails and refer them to the legal office at the University of Melbourne.

David Karoly


Prof David Karoly

School of Earth Sciences

University of Melbourne, VIC 3010, AUSTRALIA

ph:  +61 3 8344 xxxx

fax: +61 3 8344 xxxx



From: Judy Ryan ;

Subject: [execnzcsc] Re: Do These Temperature Graphs Represent Reality? That is the Question

Date: 21 February 2014 10:29:49 am AEDT

To: David John Karoly ;Dear Professor Karoly, and about 220 other observers


Dear Professor Karoly,

Thank you for your prompt reply.

 I have included other scientists, including past and present IPCC reviewers in this reply to you. These scientists are much more conversant with the Working Group Ones final, final report than either Dr Curtis or I.  But, I assure you I have read Working Group Ones final draft report, which was released to the public as an unapproved draft.  Dr Curtis and I will be looking and learning as we see the evidence  from the final, final report unfold.

 In your response below you have stated that you are not the author of the original BOM temperature graphs. But, you have not answered the second part of the question.

It is an honest, straightforward, legitimate question.

Professor Karoly, are you the author of the BOM’s  adjusted/homogenised graphs shown below?

Please click Reply All and answer the question.

We look forward to your prompt response.

Respectfully yours

Dr Judy Ryan

Dr Marjorie Curtis

P.S. Dr Curtis and I  will appreciate your courtesy in addressing both of us in your correspondence.  Marjory has been an active skeptic for more than three decades, and as many of her students know, she is a force to be reckoned with.



For more postings from me, see  DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC and AUSTRALIAN POLITICS. Home Pages are   here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  

Preserving the graphics:  Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere.  But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases.  After that they no longer come up.  From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site.  See  here or here


No comments: