Global Warming

[Stu]

It wasn’t an honest mistake. It was a calculated deception.

Algore admitted recently during a “green energy” conference in Athens that he was wrong about the benefits of diverting corn to produce “first-generation” ethanol.

Ya think?

It’s a toss-up however as to which is more contemptuous; Algore shilling for $7.7 billion in annual farm subsidies or blaming his behavior on politics.

"It is not a good policy to have these massive subsidies for first-generation ethanol," [Gore said] of the U.S. policy that is about to come up for congressional review. "First-generation ethanol I think was a mistake. The energy conversion ratios are at best very small.”

"One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee, and I had a certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa because I was about to run for president (in 2000)," [Gore said].

Hoisted on his own petard but people still listen to the man. Incredible.

Opponents of the ethanol fad have been calling out Algore et al for over 10 years but the legacy media has ignored them. Why would anyone want to divert 41% of the annual corn crop in the US – 15% globally - to produce inefficient bio-fuels instead of feeding livestock and people? I think we’ve already beat that drum sufficiently in this thread.

And just like Global Warming disciples and UN sponsored climate conferences, it’s thoroughly predictable that Algore readily accepts slipping “clean energy” solutions a few more years to the right. That’s when “second-generation” ethanol production is purported to be ready to leverage chemicals and enzymes to produce ethanol.

The madness will not stop anytime soon since COP16 starts next week in Cancun.

Stu McLennan
Harker Heights

[Stu]

11 December 2010

The antics of the Conference of the Parties (COP) continue to be so ridiculous that even the Associated Press can’t spin it away.

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) summoned the faithful from 193 countries to another “critical” meeting - this time in Cancun, Mexico - from November 29 to December 10. The goal however remained the same; to have another go at shaking down prosperous countries. (That would be “saving the planet” in AGW speak.) And like previous attempts, COP 16 degenerated immediately into chaos.

President Felipe Calderon opened the conference and challenged the 15,000 attendees gathered appropriately at a well-guarded coastal resort – but this time with an occupancy ratio of 1:1, unlike Copenhagen - to “think beyond their borders and consider all humanity”. Delegates promptly jettisoned that advice and deadlocked over the text of a “shared vision” of what the treaty nations wanted to accomplish.

Environmental ministers were then summoned and injected “new life” into the “decisive” final week in an attempt to help “protect the fruit” of 20 years of work. That too failed as the cabal achieved consensus on just 170 of the 1300 words of a proposed resolution. The main issues were management of the $100 billion “Green Climate Fund” proposed at COP 15 that would help “poor countries” “battle” climate change, and whether the earth’s temperature would rise 3.6, 2.7 or 1.5 degrees above “preindustrial levels” unless governments follow the IPCC’s lead.

One of the most amusing sideshows involved Norway. The World Bank and Guayana’s president Bharrat Jagedo pressured Norway to start forking over the $250 million it agreed to pay Guyana over the next four decades. It seems the Norwegians had promised this money if Guyana would stop deforesting its rain forest but first wanted proof that Guyana had “sequestered carbon in its trees”. (I have no idea what that means.) “Results are what we’re looking for”, said Jens Stoltenberg, “If we can prove that developing nations are saving their forests then it will show Norwegian voters that they’re getting something back.” No doubt the citizens of Norway are thrilled with this wise use of their tax dollars.

Jagedo also gave White House aide Joe Aldy a copy of the IPCC’s Executive Summary that addressed why the industrialized world owed it the $100 billion. Joe apparently assured him that President Obama would “review the document”.

Fortunately, the IPCC remains unyielding on the need for consensus before “progress” can be achieved. “The UN process is growing increasingly irrelevant”, opined Papau New Guinea delegate Kevin Conrad, who then recommended a vote be taken if consensus proved elusive. Kevin was swiftly told to sit down, shut up and color. Witnesses report that his temperature rose a few degrees.

Criticism also came from Mohammed Hasan Mahmud, the Bangladeshi Environment Minister. “Too many crunch issues were being postponed year after year [and] I doubt if the Durban conference [South Africa, host of COP 17] will deliver the desired level of results if the negotiations go the way we have been going here," he said.

There was more but you get the drift.

Alice put it succinctly - it just gets Curiouser and Curiouser.

Alas, another COP has come and gone and nothing was accomplished except the IPCC’s human glacier continued to melt. And like the Arctic, it’s taking its sweet time.

Stu McLennan
Harker Heights

[Stu]

18 June 2011

Science has never stopped AGW disciples from claiming all manner of nonsense to further socialist political and economic objectives. The latest example is the assertion that sea level measurements must be manipulated to account for the rising level of the earth's land mass.

The University of Colorado’s Sea Level Research Group has determined that a glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA) of 0.3 millimeters per year must be added to global means sea level (GMSL) measurements from 1992 to the present in order to determine the actual eustatic sea level and account for what dry sections of Mother Earth are “experiencing” as they “recover” from “the last glacial cycle that occurred 20,000 years ago”.

Seriously, there are people who think and talk this way. You can check out the Group’s Website but be forewarned – your head may explode.

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

The FAQ section explains how the Group says GMSL is derived using satellite based altimeters, differs from tide gauge measurements, and is affected by total ocean water mass (e.g., melting glaciers and land ice sheets), changes in the size of the ocean basin (e.g., GIA), and the density of water (e.g., thermal expansion).

The Group further posits that data manipulation is required because the amount of earth’s dry surface is increasing and therefore oceans can hold more water and coastal measurements made at specific locations (e.g., relative sea level, or RSL) must be adjusted.

"We have to account for the fact that the ocean basins are actually getting slightly bigger [and that] water volume is expanding," said Steve Neren, Group Director.

It would be a good idea for the Group to first produce scientific proof that the amount of water on the earth has changed, especially since even Aggies know it remains a finite amount comprising one of three states; liquid, solid or gas.

"We’re considering putting both data sets on our website; a GIA-corrected dataset, as well as one without the GIA correction," Nerem said because “when studying local sea levels rates, which is important for policy planning, one definitely needs to…...”

Wait, did he just say “policy planning”?

Target! Gunner, cease loading.

Stu McLennan
Harker Heights

[Stu]

13 August 2011

The pile of “evidence” manufactured by AGW disciples continues to grow, as does Algores’ anger that an agenda of socialism, fear and spin has failed to gain traction.

Remember the front-page pictures of Polar Bears that were "stranded" on ice flows and "drowning" in the Beaufort Sea? Well, they were faked.

The doctored photos (circa 2004) were in a 2006 article written by Charles Monnet, a veteran wildlife biologist with the US Department of Interior's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement. In July 2011, BOEMRE placed Mr. Monnet on administrative leave and quickly noted it was to allow reflection on his ability to be "impartial" when considering a pending contract involving Polar Bear research. BOEMRE also noted it had absolutely, positively, nada, nilch, nothing to do with his "scientific integrity" and his photos that had been touted by AGW disciples as “proof” for 5+ years.

Right. These aren't the droids you are looking for. You can go about your business. Move along.

That's the second time that BOERME has been in the news recently. As noted in the other thread (Big Oil: Busting the Spin), it conditionally approved oil and gas drilling permits for Shell and Conoco Phillips in the Beaufort Sea. Could the 5-year delay have been caused in part by this and similar “disinformation tactics” (aka lies)? Ya think!

But there is more.

Descending past the fourth level of Inception, Algore renewed accusations that "deniers" (aka proponents of the scientific method) were themselves agents of disinformation. During a recent Aspen Institute Forum, Algore lost it during a "passionate rant" and claimed that skeptics were peddling [scat].

"The model [of media manipulation used during the tobacco debate] was transported whole cloth into the climate debate. And some of the exact same people - by name, I can go down a list of their names - are involved in this. And so what do they do? They pay pseudo-scientists, to pretend to be scientists, to put out the message: "This climate thing, it's nonsense. Man-made CO2 doesn't trap heat. It may be volcanoes." Bulls--t! "It may be sun spots." Bulls--t! "It's not getting warmer." Bulls--t! ", said Algore.

Vapid rants aside, the man needs to visit central Texas. It's the hottest summer on record but we’re blaming cyclical weather patterns, not CO2 emissions.

Algore then veered into oncoming traffic while lamenting the absence of reason and fact-based analysis in politics.

"And there are about 10 other memes that are out there, and when you go and talk to any audience about climate, you hear them washing back at you. The same crap, over and over and over again ... There is no longer a shared reality on an issue like climate even though the very existence of our civilization is threatened. [Emphasis mine] People have no idea! And yet our ability to actually come to a shared reality that emphasizes the best evidence ... It's no longer acceptable in mixed company, meaning bipartisan company, to use the god***n word "climate. It is not acceptable. They have polluted it to the point where we cannot possibly come to an agreement on it."

I actually agree with him vis-à-vis the existence of memes, but not in the deluded way he means. Tragically, ideas and behaviors exist today which, like the people who spout them, are disconnected from reality yet self-replicate, mutate and transport all manner of illogical and fabricated cultural beliefs and nonsense that are detrimental to the welfare of humans and our planet. As Ann Coulter splendidly details in Demonic, these behaviors, their roots and destructive results are perfectly illustrated in the AGW mob and therefore we need to keep beating that drum.

Stu McLennan
Harker Heights

[Stu]

September 6, 2011

The Mob has slipped even deeper into La La Land.

AGW disciples have now labeled "Deniers" as racists and encouraged fabrication of an alien invasion to help stimulate the global economy. The frequency of syncopal episodes is now so frequent that even MSNBC is ignoring them.

How bad is it?

In an interview with Fearless Revolution, Algore equates The Quest to the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Apparently correcting the way we speak is a more important first step than establishing a scientific basis and dealing with results you don’t like. He then further muddied the water by saying we should also quit raising cattle and mining ore since these activities [wound Mother Earth].

Paul Krugman of Grey Lady fame piled on with another massive stray volt. He suggests….wait for it…..that we unite Mankind by inventing a war against a common extra terrestial enemy and allow the resulting spasm of global activity to solve our economic problems. This totally fits the mold since hallucinations are standard data for The Mob.

I guess we need an imaginary alien invasion because the war between Carbon Based Biological Interface Units is winding down in Afghanistan. At least that’s what the teleprompter says at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Seriously, its important to chronicle the Mob's lunacy so we can try to keep this thing between the ditches. And we might as well have a few laughs in the process.

Stu McLennan
Harker heights

[Stu]

December 14, 2011

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) again summoned the faithful from November 28th to December 9th 2011, this time to Durban, South Africa to conduct the 17th Conference of Parties. And like previous events, COP 17 was another noisy mosh pit.

The conference theme this year was Working Together – Saving Tomorrow Today. Delegates did neither as acrimony pervaded as they frantically tried to “achieve the full, effective and sustained implementation of the Kyoto Protocols”. Adopted in 1997, the first round of commitments ends in 2012 and the entire Protocol will collapse if “rich” countries opt not to play.

Translated – That would be the evil, selfish, and manipulative major carbon-emitters like the United States, Britain, Australia, Canada, much of Europe and China. You know, countries that power global everything.

"Expectations are already at rock bottom regarding an international climate change architecture.....and there is no reason to expect any upside," opined Divya Reddy, a political risk consultant with Eurasia Group.

The ensuing mishmash of unscientific issues, inane recommendations, and non-binding pronouncements were a repeat of COP 16 and previous cabals. The current global economy caused a new wrinkle in the level of angst but not enough to keep “climate envoys” from again escaping earth’s gravitational pull. After an all-nighter the final evening, bleary-eyed and disheveled delegates trumpeted a slew of “new” agreements (aka hallucinations).

- Adopting a vision that creates an international legal framework and “climate court of justice” and requires developed countries to cut emissions, end poverty (and world hunger?), and reimburse “poor” countries for the “historic climate debt caused by rich countries”.

- Ending warfare as we know it and the greenhouse gases caused by combat. Funds allocated to military operations would be redirected into “fighting a common enemy, global warming". We’ll need to wait to see if Paul Krugman’s alien army was considered (see above).

- Making the “rights” of “Mother Earth” a priority. This was an important but surprisingly contentious ideological nod to environmentalist activists.

On cue, UNFCCC spokespersons then breathlessly announced these “hard fought” agreements as the conference ended. The global media also dutifully echoed that these non-binding “negotiations” were aimed at achieving a “far reaching program” by the year 2020. Success! Progress!

UNFCCC Executive Secretary, Christiana Figueres, then lauded the Republic of Korea for deferring to the State of Qatar as host for COP 18 from November 26th to December 7th, 2012. She also gushed that the cooperation, commitment and leadership displayed by the two countries reflects “the ability of humans at basic levels to work together” and “serves as a model for the COP process. All governments working together on the next essential climate steps can be inspired by this collaborative spirit."

(Sigh) The AGW coterie started this COP nonsense in 1974 and the playbook remains unchanged; loud talk, no proof, internal divisions and exclusions, histrionics, hype, grand-standing, dire predictions, empty threats, and fluid objectives.

24 hours later, Canada rained on the victory lap by invoking its legal right to pull out of the Protocols because “[Kyoto] doesn’t represent the way forward for Canada or the world.” Well played Maple Leaf, well played. Other countries are soon projected to follow Ottowa’s lead.

Better yet, perhaps President Obama will continue to avoid his leadership responsibilities and stall – like he’s doing with the Keystone XL pipeline – and that would allow the next President to punt Kyoto with his first executive order and thereby begin the end of this global lunacy.

Stu McLennan
Harker Heights

[Stu]

December 16, 2011

Apparently what started with such fanfare, hype and soaring rhetoric is finally beginning to implode. See below. Good timing, Santa.

Perhaps it was unintentional but Russia obliquely notes what many "deniers" already know - that AGW goals are based on political and economic objectives, not science.

Stu McLennan
Harker Heights

*****
Russia Slams Kyoto Protocol
Published December 16, 2011

Associated Press

MOSCOW -- Russia supports Canada's decision to pull out of the Kyoto Protocol, says its foreign ministry, reaffirming Friday that Moscow will not take on new commitments.

Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich told Friday's briefing that the treaty does not cover all major polluters, and thus cannot help solve the climate crisis.

Canada on Monday pulled out of the agreement - initially adopted in 1997 in Kyoto, Japan, to cut carbon emissions contributing to global warming. Its move dealt a blow to the treaty, which has not been formally renounced by any other country.

"This is yet another example that the 1997 Kyoto Protocol has lost its effectiveness in the context of the social and economic situation of the 21st century," Lukashevich said, adding that the document does not ensure the participation of all key emitters.

The protocol requires some industrialized countries to slash emissions, but doesn't cover the world's largest polluters, China and the United States.

Canada, Japan and Russia said last year they will not accept new Kyoto commitments.

[Stu]

February 12, 2012

Ooopsie. The Himalayas aren’t melting like Margaret Hamilton (hint, 1939) and Al Gore and the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were wrong at the top of their lungs….again.

In 2007, the IPCC pessimistically proclaimed that glaciers in the Himalayan high mountain range were receding and would likely disappear by 2035. That nonsense was immediately and forcefully rejected.

"The IPCC's statement is wrong and misleading," said Andreas Schild, director-general of the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development in Kathmandu, Nepal. "It was pretty clear early on that this was an error awaiting correction," said Michael Zemp, a glaciologist with the World Glacier Monitoring Service in Zurich, Switzerland. (See Glacier estimate on thin ice by Quirin Schiermeier, Nature journal, January 19, 2010).

The nail in that coffin came from none other than the coordinating author of the IPCC work group. Murari Lai admitted that his team followed IPCC protocols but used only a few hundred glaciers – an unacceptably small sample population given the desired results - and failed to apply scientific rigor to sources before jumping to this contusion.

The IPCC, bloodied but stubbornly and typically unbowed, issued a weak mea-culpa and retreated.

Now satellite-based analysis of 200,000 glaciers has totally debunked the IPCC’s dire claim. John Wahr, a researcher at the University of Colorado, conducted a study from 2003 to 2010 using data collected by a NASA satellite called Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment. GRACE confirmed the Himalayan glaciers are indeed melting but at a statistically insignificant rate.

Jonathan Bamber, a Bristol University glaciologist, grudgingly admitted the same in Climate change; Shrinking glaciers under scrutiny, published online in Nature journal on February 8, 2012.

"The very unexpected result [from the Nature study] was the negligible mass loss from [the region known as] high mountain Asia, which is not significantly different from zero,"

Bamber “cautioned” however that these results don’t alter the “fact” that the climate is rapidly changing. “This new study doesn't change our view of the risks and threats from climate change,” he said in an online chat. “What it does do is improve our knowledge of the recent behavior of one part of the climate system.”

Right. “We were wrong” are words you’ll never hear from AGW zealots.

Given its track record, the IPCC will no doubt regroup and revector. One possible tack is to hype that the real problem is melting in low mountain ranges that will result in rising sea levels, flooding of inhabited land masses, and all manner of dire consequence. The accompanying angst would likely reach a crescendo if the Coca-Cola Polar Bears were displaced to an iceberg.

Stu McLennan
Harker Heights

[Stu]

March 23, 2012

The Obama administration is pleading (demanding, lecturing) for patience and equating the development of electric cars with cell phones – Sure initial versions were big and clunky, but look at them now!

Introduced in 2010, market demand for the Volt (and other electric/gas hybrid sleds) remains anemic despite a massive push by the President, liberals and special interest groups. GM sales goals in 2011 and 2012 were 10,000 and 45,000 respectively but it sold just 7,671 in 2011 and a meager 1,626 units so far in 2012. 3,500 Volts remain in unsold inventory hence the 1-month break in production announced last month.

Even Congress has tried to help, and failed. The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 established a $7,500 tax credit for electric vehicles that rises to $10,000 in President Obama’s 2012 budget. Surely that will help……

California also recently gave the Volt a push – no pun intended - by allowing environmentally conscious owners and leases to use the HOV lane during rush hour traffic. SUVs however remain excluded because, as we know, they historically operate independently from the humans they transport.

The results of all this cajoling, manipulating, and hyperventilating? Cricket…..cricket…….

Dave Ramsey wryly noted several years ago that it’s instructive (read, sad) that primarily low-income people gambling on lotteries are helping subsidize the purchase of electric cars by those making six figure incomes.

But just for fun, lets ignore the Marxist basis of the Green Movement and imagine a parallel universe where electric cars are actually desired by consumers.

Headline - Move over Club Car and EZ Go, the Chevy Volt and its cousins may soon even infringe on your sacred domain.

The Volt et al could be poised to be the rock stars of golf carts. GM must first reverse the negative perception of the battery pack. In 2011, a lithium-ion battery caught fire well after a pole-impact crash test and the fire destroyed the test vehicle. GM has since implemented modifications to assuage user concerns that a similar fate does not await them days, weeks or months after an accident. The Talking Point could be that this fate is less likely on a golf course than a highway.

Range may be an issue on the highway but not on the links. The average golf course is 7,200 yards - or 4.1 miles. The average electric golf cart range is 10 miles - or 2 rounds of golf. The Volt however gets 25-50 miles on electric plus another 300-400 miles on gas and therefore has an edge in range and redundant systems. Remember when your electric cart ran out of juice on the 15th hole and you had to schlep your clubs the final three holes to the clubhouse; in the rain, barefoot, and uphill? No more. Now you’d have a back-up mode of propulsion.

Volts would be safer. Seatbelts, airbags and rollover protection are normally not something you see on a golf cart.

Volts would seat a four-some, thus eliminating half the carbon footprint currently required to transport golfers. Bag and drink holders however would need to be added after-market until designs could be integrated into production lines.

To be fair, we must also acknowledge that there would be a downside.

The Volt’s 240v charging station costs $490 plus installation. Owners may also be required to spend several thousand dollars to upgrade their residence’s electrical system to provide the required 220v, 30 amp circuit. That is, unless they can use one of those free charging stations located downtown that you see in the commercials.

Existing cart paths may also need to be widened and that would likely be an unfunded requirement for city managers. The average golf course cart path is sufficient for the 38” wheel track of electric carts but would not support the Volt’s 70” width. This would be good news however for construction companies, especially in a cyclical economy.

And finally, there is likely no way to mount chrome 20’s on those tiny rims……

Stu McLennan
Harker Heights

[Stu]

April 21, 2012

Truth be known, the scientific process hinges not on research but the ethical behavior of those conducting it. And like all cultures, the scientific community can be rife with abuse – corrupt processes and outcomes - unless leaders establish norms and enforce standards.

Culture exerts a more powerful influence over ethical behavior than individual character and personality, opined Dr. Howard T. Prince II. Dr. Prince is a distinguished graduate of and former professor at West Point and currently the Director, Center for Ethical Leadership at the University of Texas. He spoke recently about ethical leadership at the Killeen Heights Rotary Club and his comments resonated with the assembled community leaders.

Dr. Prince cited a 2005 article in Nature journal that compiled survey results submitted by 3,247 scientists; 40% of those receiving it in 2002. All were located in the United States, received funding from the National Institutes of Health, and worked in the areas of biology, medicine, social sciences, chemistry, math, physics and engineering. 33% admitted to unethical research practices that would “get them in trouble” including skirting accepted processes and using flawed or questionably interpreted data. Seasoned scientists were apparently the worst - they knew what was required to secure funding - and newer scientists ostensibly followed their lead.

Dr. Prince also observed that “Bad Apples” – sociopaths and individuals with character flaws - remain societal problems but they are far less caustic than “Bad Barrels” – corrupt organizational cultures. Good leaders are supposed to positively shape cultures and sustain boundaries - norms that guard against abuse – as well as punish unethical behavior. Within societies, the failure of leaders to enforce these standards corrupts political power; private sector profits; public sector spending; military missions; and scientific research. Several infamous American examples come to mind – My Lai, Watergate, Enron, and most recently the General Services Administration. And given their track record, many argue convincingly that the Global Warming movement is also firmly entrenched on this list.

Good leaders move societies and organizations towards goals that have positive outcomes. The scientific community desperately needs leaders of character to step up, follow the scientific process - wherever it leads - and ensure that climatologic research is transparent and not twisted to support political and social objectives.

Can you name one such leader?

Stu McLennan
Harker Heights

[Stu]

June 24, 2012

The United Nations held its latest climate conference in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil from June 20-22, 2012 but not even heads of state, high profile pols, rock stars, academia, artists, activists, NGOs and the curious from 193 countries could help organizers achieve their own low expectations.

The UN’s goals for Rio+20 were typically overreaching and included moving away from business as usual; securing political commitments on a global green economy; achieving sustainable energy development, international cooperation, and economic stability; assessing progress towards the goals established at past summits; eradicating hunger and energy and economic poverty; ending subsidies for fossil fuels; reducing deforestation; advancing women’s rights; and protecting the seas.

“Achieving sustainable energy for all is not only possible, but necessary – it is the golden thread that connects development, social inclusion and environmental protection,” said UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

The AGW clique’s socialist political and economic goals remain unchanged but the thrust line of media talking points has obviously shifted from “climate change” to “sustainable development”. Something must just not be resonating.

The latest UN mosh pit however followed a pattern very familiar since the original Earth Summit in 1992: breathless media hype before, during and after; legions of pols, delegates, and activists; soaring rhetoric; redundant and lofty goals; dire warnings of impending environmental and economic disasters; rebukes for “developed” nations, notably the United States; migraine inducing speeches; bleary-eyed staffers working feverishly against the clock; a lack of consensus; expressing deep concern; affirming themes and principles; and outcomes laden with platitudes but lacking substance.

Typical.

The Outcomes of the Conference for Rio +20 contains 283 action points, packed into 53 pages, and is both illuminating and mind numbing. I’m still pondering how tourism supports sustainable development (#130, #131). There is a call for universal health coverage (#139) but only three specifically address climate change (#190 to #192). The expectation that “developed” countries fork over funding to the UN – this time 0.7% of GDP by 2015 - to fund sustainable development in “developing” countries is buried at the end (#253).

The UN might want to bring Tom Friedman in as a consultant. In That Used to Be Us, the authors note the following;

“As globalization and the IT revolution continue to merge, expand, and advance, the more they will destroy the old categories of “developed” and “developing” countries. Going forward, we are convinced, the world increasingly will be divided between high-imagination-enabling countries, which encourage and enable the imagination and “extras” of their people, and low-imagination-enabling countries, which suppress or fail to develop their people’s creative capacities and abilities to spark new ideas, start up new industries, and nurture their own “extra”.” (pg 138)

In other words, countries that are proactive and creative will thrive but those that whine and enlist the UN’s help to leech off others will not survive.

Rio + 20 did manage however to achieve one thing that was celebrated with a victory lap – a decision to have more conferences.

Oh joy.

That United States officials lend credibility to the AGW subterfuge by attending these conferences is a source of continued embarrassment.

"I think the expectation that there is one document or one approach that can solve one of the major questions of our time…..there's not one paper that can do that," said U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs Dr. Kerri-Ann Jones. "This is a process. We have to embrace it as a process, look at the positive things we have done, and keep working, as there is much more to do."

Say again? Al Gore et al have been churning this butter for decades.

And the beat goes on.

UN conferences on “climate change” are so predictable, and the pronouncements so vapid, that critical analysis remains almost impossible. The next clan gathering may be different however. Word on the street is that the One Ring has resurfaced and will bring order to the chaos.

Stu McLennan
Harker Heights

[Stu]

January 4, 2013

The UN’s Conference of the Parties (COP) 18 met in Doha from 26 November to 7 December. As with previous COPs, Doha was another Mosh Pit and none of the conference goals were accomplished. Still, AGW disciples were pleased that the global community did not “dismantle the [Kyoto Protocols]”. True, it did something better – ignore the noise emanating from Doha.

Alaska is in a cooling period and experiencing record ice growth. These are cyclical and expected phenomenon but the legacy media somehow has missed it. Typical. Note the part about decadal oscillation. (See Nov 6, 2007 post above, specifically Thermohaline forcing.)

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/f ... ed-ice-age

Stu McLennan
Harker Heights