The Real Agenda Of Global Warming, Part Two

There is an almost surreal element to reading this piece from Reason by Ronald Bailey. On the one hand, the agenda of the people pushing all the global warming hysteria is out on full display. The complete, abject failure of the Kyoto treaty is obvious. Bailey sees all this, discusses it - then shows that he believes mankind is at fault for global warming anyway.

Nusa Dua, Bali - On December 11, Greenpeace distributed slices from a gigantic chocolate cake to participants at the U.N. Climate Change conference (COP-13) to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol. Since many Kyoto Protocol signatories are not meeting their obligations to cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to levels below those of 1990, I'm not sure what the festivities are all about. In fact, Japan, Canada and many EU countries are emitting more GHG than they did in 1990.

Oh, well. It's the thought that counts.

One of the hottest topics being negotiated the COP-13 is technology transfer. I was under the impression that technology usually got transferred when one party sold it to another. That's how I got the Sony Vaio on which I am typing this dispatch. Apparently that's old-fashioned thinking. Under the new post-Kyoto climate treaty, poor countries are demanding that rich countries create some kind of tech transfer fund that would be used to subsidize their purchases of new low-carbon energy and carbon sequestration technologies.

If that weren't enough there are rumblings among poor country negotiators that they want the right to simply seize the patents (nicely called "compulsory licensing" in trade talks) and make the equipment themselves. "If there is insistence on the 'full protection of intellectual property' in relation to climate-friendly technology, it would be a barrier to technology transfer," declared Martin Khor, director of the leftist Third World Network. Is threatening to confiscate their patents really the way to encourage companies and inventors to invest in creating the innovative low-carbon energy technologies that world is being told are vital to stopping dangerous climate change?

UN activists want a global tax, exacted from "rich" nations, with all proceeds going to the UN to use as it sees fit. Others want property rights taken away from "rich" countries and private entities and handed to other countries to use as they see fit. Can anyone look at this agenda and believe those pushing it are above being mendacious to get it accomplished? They are not above trying to silence any critics.

CHICAGO, Dec. 13 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — For the second time this week, the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) was kicked off the press schedule for the United Nations' climate conference in Bali, Indonesia.

The ICSC is a group of scientists from Africa, Australia, Europe, India, New Zealand, and the U.S. who contend sound science does not support the outrageous claims and draconian regulations proposed in Bali.

The ICSC team leader, Bryan Leyland, an expert in carbon and energy trading, reported, "This morning I confirmed we had the main conference hall for 9:00 AM tomorrow. At 4:30 PM today, I found that Barbara Black bumped us off the schedule and closed further bookings. I'm fuming."

Black is NGO liaison officer for the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Bali.

There are some inconvenient scientists who are still trying to get politicians to step back and stand down on these agenda items. 100 of them have been trying to make their voices heard.

BALI, Indonesia - An international team of scientists skeptical of man-made climate fears promoted by the UN and former Vice President Al Gore, descended on Bali this week to urge the world to "have the courage to do nothing" in response to UN demands.  

Lord Christopher Monckton, a UK climate researcher, had a blunt message for UN climate conference participants on Monday.

"Climate change is a non-problem. The right answer to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing," Monckton told participants. 

There are also researchers who have shown that the models being used to sell this snake oil are wrong - and badly wrong. David Douglass, John Christy, Benjamin Pearson and Fred Singer have compared actual data against climate prediction models and have shown that the models go totally wrong as the altitude increases. This should not be the case if the culprit of global warming are greenhouse gasses.

The models and observations are compatible near the surface. However, about 5 kilometers above the surface (where the greenhouse effects starts to become relevant) in the tropical zones, models predict between 2 times and 4 times higher warming trend than what is observed. Above the altitude of 8 kilometers, the theoretical and empirical trends have opposite signs.

The full paper is here. But a picture is worth a thousand words:

The closing of the paper pretty well says it all:

The last 25 years constitute a period of more complete and accurate observations and more realistic modelling efforts. Yet the models are seen to disagree with the observations. We suggest, therefore, that projections of future climate based on these models be viewed with much caution.

But that caution is being thrown to the agenda-driven winds.

(Thanks to ICECAP for some of the links in this post.)

• 

  By martian, Friday, 14 December , 2007 @ 3:21 pm

  An unwritten yet nevertheless strictly adhered to liberal policy: Never, ever let facts and science get in the way of a good tax!

• 

  By sam, Friday, 14 December , 2007 @ 4:28 pm

  Come on, you knew that this global warming thing was going to turn into an opportunity for an extortion racket. After all, the UN is involved.

• 

  By Bleepless, Friday, 14 December , 2007 @ 7:57 pm

  Some years back, “Reason” had a cover story defending global warming, whatever the cause. The cover showed a cartoon of crocs in the Thames.

Other Links to this Post

1. Blue Crab Boulevard » Vast Majority? — Saturday, 15 December , 2007 @ 11:46 pm