A very sensible article.

The Carbon Sense Coalition today accused the UN Warsaw climate conference and some world media of callous exploitation of human suffering in the recent typhoon in order to promote their international carbon tax levelling plans.

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2013/11/typhoons-carbon-taxes-tragic-but-not.html

Hi Tom and Madhav,

These delegates have certainly not failed “everyone”.

The equivalent of $US 1 Trillion has been sucked out of the EU economy alone. There must be some beneficiaries?

The old adage “follow the money” comes to mind. The delegates themselves of course, have thus far enjoyed the luxury ride on the taxpayer funded gravy train for many years.

Other beneficiaries include industrial opportunists that have “sold” very expensive and non-market ready technology at subsidized (distorted market) rates. Wealthy “rent seekers” have received vast sums of subsidized rent for hosting wind and solar farms.

The financial sector has enjoyed high rates of return from government guaranteed investments in renewable energy and NGO’s have received $Millions in taxpayer funded “donations”.

Many of the worlds best research establishments and Universities have received enormous taxpayer funded “grants” to support national governments and the IPCC with their research. None unfortunately, appear to be providing any contrary scientific perspectives.

Many developing nations are benefiting from the transfer of industrialization from the EU in particular, as heavy industry, automotive and energy production is priced out of their own markets or purchased to re-emerge in China, Asia, India, South America or in the case of VW’s new plant, in Washington State?

Emissions Trading Markets. Although either closed (Chicago Climate Exchange) or collapsed (UN/EU), there are many nations that invested in credits, sold them without paying VAT, scammed by African nations, defrauded as in the case of the Copenhagen Exchange (Only Kr 40M though), or sold at a premium to those countries that committed to Cap and Trade but could not meet their obligations.

The UN is stuffing it’s coffers with $billions of other peoples money to fund their “Wealth Transfer” at a rate of 10% of the action from each signatory. Australia’s contribution would have been $1Bn of our CO2 Tax straight to the UN.

Then we have the politicians who “bought” a Green ticket to ride, a few green investments from a “friend” or a board position with the Wife’s energy company.

Total Bill. $US 1 Trillion, these delegates failed nobody of interest.

Why does OLO continue with these pretentious, erroneous and puerile articles?

For example...
"If the Philippines government had done the same, and had their storm shelters been properly constructed, the death toll from Haiyan would have been much lower. A similar typhoon struck Australia in 2011, a country which does have proper storm shelters, and there were no fatalities."

We don't have typhoons, we don't have typhoon shelters and most cyclones hit the coast in low population areas as opposed to millions of people living in fragile housing.

or...
"Developed country representatives should have also cited the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) report, also released in September, which asserted:

"in no case has a convincing relationship been established between warming over the past 100 years and increases in any of these extreme events.""

The NIPCC is a non credible, non peer reviewed, private think tank funded by the energy industry (and/or reps). As the expression goes; "they would say that". Having a fancy acronym does not a reliable information source make.

The rest of the article confuses risk mitigation, attempts to slow down the rate of climate change and preparation of possible strategies to cope with CC.

Dear Peter King,

<< The NIPCC is a non credible, non peer reviewed, private think tank funded by the energy industry (and/or reps) >> Really?

Perhaps you would like to substantiate that comment?

If you cannot evidence your comment you have the following options. Try to find out how many of the NIPCC scientists are linked to private funding? Which of the 50 scientists lied about peer reviewing? Why these scientists are not credible when they are using the same peer-reviewed research? You can “shoot a messenger(s)” of your choice. You can tell us how many scientists wrote the IPCC’s SPM? Or you can find some nasty name for those who disagree with you.

Here’s my research.

Both the IPCC and NIPCC reports both draw their conclusions from the same body of published scientific research. So the equivalent lead authors and reviewers actually looks like this.

NIPCC issued its current report, Climate Change Reconsidered II (CCR-II), a book of more than a thousand pages citing nearly 5,000 peer-reviewed scientific references and written or reviewed by some 50 climate scientists.

It looks like the IPCC falls well short of the NIPCC’s numbers?

IPCC AR5

Group 1 (WG 1)

Coordinating Lead Authors: Ulrich Cubasch (Germany), Donald Wuebbles (USA)
Lead Authors: Deliang Chen (Sweden), Maria Cristina Facchini (Italy), David Frame (UK/New Zealand),
Natalie Mahowald (USA), Jan-Gunnar Winther (Norway)
Contributing Authors: Achim Brauer (Germany), Valérie Masson-Delmotte (France), Frank Kaspar
(Germany), Janina Körper (Germany), Malte Meinshausen (Australia/Germany), Matthew Menne (USA),
Carolin Richter (Switzerland), Michael Schulz (Germany), Bjorn Stevens (Germany/USA), Rowan Sutton
(UK), Kevin Trenberth (USA), Murat Türke&#351; (Turkey), Daniel S. Ward (USA)
Review Editors: Yihui Ding (China), Linda Mearns (USA), Peter Wadhams (UK)

Group II (WG II) assesses the vulnerability of socio-economic and natural systems to climate change.

Group III (WG III) assesses options for mitigating climate change through limiting or preventing greenhouse gas emissions.

And this from one of the IPCC’s own reviewers.

“Dr Vincent Gray, the New Zealand scientist who has been an expert reviewer of every IPCC Assessment Report so far summarizes the repeated fudges in their preparation.”

Peter King says:

"We don't have typhoons, we don't have typhoon shelters and most cyclones hit the coast in low population areas as opposed to millions of people living in fragile housing."

I live in Newcastle and you're a goose; whatever you want to call the Pasha Bulka event, typhoon, cyclone, hurricane, and there is no climatic difference between the terms, it was in a populated area, as was the 2010 storm which caused the Wivenhoe Dam floods.

I am yet to read or hear one supporter of AGW who doesn't exaggerate, lie or adopt a superior attitude towards those who put rational, evidence based refutations against this putrid ideology, AGW.

King is no exception.