I’ve never been one to subscribe to the “conspiracy theory of history”. Nor have I ever been particularly impressed with the works of the United Nations. As for “climate change” (formerly known as global warming), it seems to me that the “great expectations” of all who had blindly jumped onto the IPCC’s “CO2 causes global warming” bandwagon must be very unsettled by the revelations coming out of the “bleak house” called “Climategate”.
What the dickens is going on, they must be asking themselves … while watching the wobbly wheels fall off their wagon!
The US Heritage Foundation, an admittedly conservative “think-tank”, has two reporters blogging from Copenhagen. Here are some highlights from two of today’s entries:
Great news – Copenhagen is a disaster
“Collapsing in chaos” is a phrase the media is using to describe the Copenhagen climate conference, and that certainly is the feeling among many here at the Bella Center. Little has gone right, and indeed many registered participants were never even let in. The Danish minister in charge has resigned. Now, those of us who managed to make it in may get turned away for the crucial last two days Thursday and Friday.
U.N. Official Admits Copenhagen Conference “is Not a Climate Change Negotiation” .
Substantively, it looks as though little has been accomplished towards binding emissions targets to replace the expiring provisions in the existing Kyoto Protocol. The reason is simple – reducing carbon dioxide emissions is prohibitively expensive.
As the developed and developing worlds continue to spar here in Copenhagen over the terms of a comprehensive climate change treaty, a key United Nations official let the actual truth slip out as to what this conference is really about.
Janos Pasztor—the Director of U.N. secretary-general Ban Ki-moon’s Climate Change Support Team—was characterizing the nature of the talks between the rich and poor nations of the world when he said the following: “This is not a climate-change negotiation … It’s about something much more fundamental. It’s about economic strength.” The nations at the negotiation, he added, “just have to slug it out.” [emphases added -hro]
Even BC (Before Climategate) back in October, Pasztor was singing a slightly different tune:
Pasztor told a news conference “there is tremendous activity by governments in capitals and internationally to shape the outcome” of the climate change conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, in early December, which “is a good development” because political leadership is essential to make a deal.
But he indicated that Copenhagen most likely won’t produce a treaty, but instead will push governments as far as they can go on the content of an agreement.
Incidentally, even the Russians seem to be having some doubts regarding whether or not “the science is settled”.
One could take a rather (you should pardon the expression!) “skeptical” view of the Russians’ claim that:
Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.
To repeat, I do not subscribe to the “conspiracy theory of history”. But, it seems to me that if the CRU crew and their buddies around the world (who together succeeded in getting the “CO2 causes global warming” bandwagon rolling) expected the high level of funding for their “research” to continue after Copenhagen, the very last thing they should have been touting is that “the science is settled” (or too often heard words to that effect).
You see, if the outcome of the Copenhagen CarbonFest were to meet their wildest dreams, it would be “irresponsible” of the nations of the world to continue funding the CRUdites, wouldn’t it? More likely the response would be “thank you very much, your work is done here”.
So, with the CarbonFest in chaos – and the “real” agenda finally forging its way to the fore – a presumably non-binding “agreement” , rather than a binding “treaty”, appears to be in the works. This could keep the door open for continued funding of “climate science” research.
Perhaps in anticipation of this newly opened door, we now have the Russians stepping up to the (funding?!) plate, since it increasingly appears that the Hockey-stick Team has at least three strikes against them (and we’re still counting those strikes!)
The View From Here 