"Some even fear a regime collapse. This is often blamed on layered bureaucracy." No, it's because it is becoming increasingly clear that the emperor has no clothes.

How interesting. Here we have another youthful poster, one so naive that they used the words UN & legitimate in the same sentence, in fact in a headline.

I wonder at what age they start to see the wood, rather than the trees?

Perhaps the succession of failed negotiations is an incresing recognition that , yes, the climate is changeing as it always has and will continue to do so, but the world no longer considers it a "climate crisis!". Released emails suggest there is an increasing level of doubt and uncertainty about the legitimacy of the IPPC (UN) in their certainty that it is an anthropogenic driven change.
The tradgedy here is that the 'climate fund' will merely divert existing foreign aid resources directed toward clean water, health, emergency relief etc to an unaccountable slush fund within the UN beaurocracy.
Increasing levels of co2 will only serve to enhance the biosphere, an air borne nutrient.
I have to agree with Faustino when he says that the populace increasingle recognises an emperor with no clothes

"We must recognise that the UN is the best system we have to find solutions to the climate crisis. Unlike its alternatives, it is the universally agreed upon system to address climate change."

Obviously it's not universally agreed upon, or you wouldn't need states or an association of states as an instrument of action in the first place.

You are only in a position to argue that the UN is the best system we have to find solutions to alleged catastrophic AGW, if you can first establish what NO advocate of policy action has EVER established, namely:
a) that we face catastrophic man-made global warming. No-one ever makes this argument without ignoring the institutionalised fraud and corruption that is riddled throughout the whole climate science establishment at the highest levels. Like the author, all warmists simply assume without basis in evidence or reason that the science proves their case. But when we chase them down, their arguments aren't even RATIONAL. As we have seen in this forum over and over, it is RELIGION that makes their case. The whole thing is just an endless liturgy of state-worship, just like the author's article.

b) that the downsides of global warming outweigh the upsides. This is because they simply ASSUME, as the author does, that any anthropogenic effect is automatically and irredeemably negative.

c) that the upsides of policy action outweigh the negatives. They NEVER take into account the lives, property and freedom that are to be destroyed by their policies. They just baldly assume a power in government to beneficially manage the world's ecology, economy and climate, ha ha.

The author has not even begun to explain how she knows that any problem of climate change wouldn't be more beneficially remedied by voluntary rather than by coercive action. Go ahead. Your whole argument is morally and intellectually bankrupt.

Yet these fatal flaws in the warmist argument have been pointed out over and over again. It gets to the stage where their persistence cannot be put down to mere ignorance, but a conclusion of anti-human mal-intent is unavoidable.

The UN intends to collect 'climate' money under the guise of a 'Climate Fund' but intends to redistribute it to those nations which will DECREASE their rate of development thus prolonging lack of electricity and running water in most of the continent. Our money is being extorted to fund an unelected body of dodgy UN officials who,like they have done in the past, make off with it themselves or distribute it to muderous dictators.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122368007369524679.html

Ethan Bowering from Global Voices talks about encouraging Australian youth to get involved in climate change diplomacy.

But Its Sexual COMPETITION and Sexual AGGRESSION and the resulting 75 million per annum OVERPOPULATION rate of this human dominated finite planet that is the MOTIVE force of "hundred year off climate change" and "20 year off Global War".

When do we get to see the "no more Mr Nice Guy" championing "population control" rather than effeminate diplomacy in the face of a tooled up testosteronised global free-or-all

Atman,

You will find that the "dictators" are usually operating in partnership with the IMF and the World Bank. These organisations and others of their ilk represent Western corporate interests and are more interested in "privatising" utilities for profit (that then makes it's way into the pockets of the ruling elite of the country and outside borders into the wallets of corporations), than providing them for the benefit of the general population.
So it seems that the skeptic/denialist/contrarian movement which is so often funded by big oil or other corporate interests definitely has a vested interest in painting it's own picture.

What we have here, as climate scientist Judith Curry suggested last year, is a lucrative (for many of the players) “feedback loop between politics, science, and science funding."

As a result, it was inevitable the IPCC would end up promoting precisely the policy option (CO2 stabilization) favoured by the UNFCCC, “an overconfident assessment of the importance of greenhouse gases in future climate change”, etc.

When an accurate history of UN’s long involvement with this issue is written, it will be clear how eagerly – and prematurely - the developing world (and other players) embraced it, years before the IPCC ruled (incorrectly) the science was “settled”.

It will be a case study in self-interest ("climate debt"), politicisation of science and entrenchment of confirmation bias on a grand scale.

Just once I would like to see some evidence of the oil/coal/ corporate sponsorship furfy that keeps appearing. I bet Joe Nova, Ian Plimer, Anthony Watts, Christopher Monkton, Pilke senior and junior and a raft of others who have the temerity to postulate a degree of insecurity in the findings and motives of the IPCC organisations, would be more than happy to receive even one hundreth of the funding directed to the AGW proponents.
KAPE.... Could you post again please? whilst I am sure there is a valid argument in there somewhere, I got a little lost.

KAEP is right, the existing 75% miilion a year growth of over population guarantees more global warming and a possible world war.Our planet is exposed to various possible catastrophic destinies apart from runaway global warming from fossil fuel emissions (340 billion tonnes since 1850.) and runaway melting of the permafrost (1672 billion tonnes ff Methane and CO2). There is no chance of containing the warming impact Unless the UN has an expanded role.

Mother Nature may throw a big rock at us which could reduce us to a patch of deep frozen solar gravel.” Because asteroids are much smaller than planets, detection of them is currently difficult. The distinction between planets and asteroids is not very clear. Large asteroids such as Ceres and Vesta could possibly be classified as planets, because they have not been destroyed since the formation of the solar system.

Physicists; astromoners are finding these issues interesting .Firstly the the Issue of black holes and dark matter is now attracting a great deal of iscientific interest of how this weird “matter” imight enter the solar system in the distant future and do what is shown in some science fiction films.

Secondly, Physicists and astromoners and astronouts in space, have been scanning the solar sytem for objects in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter and found 32,000 asteroids many of which if knocked from there current orbits in collisions with other asteroids and the gravitation fields of Jupiter, Saturn and their moons some of which are a big as the earths moon. Why are most comments to this discusson so negative dont they knowasteroid impacts have happened before happeneds before The Astromoners also detected 20 new comets. NASA websites discuss these possibilities as being very real .

Poirot.
Please, pretty please, give some evidence, real evidence, as to the financial support being given by oil, coal, gas and corporate organisations to people who express doubt about the CO2/warming link.
Hard data required:source of money, recipient(s) of that money and the sums involved.
You are a mature person, you should know better than to rant on without giving chapter and verse to support your convictions about payments to climate skeptics.
Your wild statements on this issue are what I would expect from radio Pyongyang. Very disappointing coming from you.

A clip for starters Poirot

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaKm89eVhoE

The Koch brothers funded this study too, but guess what happened?

http://tinyurl.com/3omzzfb

So called "sceptics" shooting themselves in the feet, again.

I agree with EYEJAW ..
Global subsidies for fossil fuels dwarf support given to renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power and biofuels, Bloomberg New Energy Finance said.
Governments last year gave $43 billion to $46 billion of support to renewable energy through tax credits, guaranteed electricity prices known as feed-in tariffs and alternative energy credits, the London-based research group said today in a statement. That compares with the $557 billion that the International Energy Agency last month said was spent to subsidize fossil fuels in 2008.

“One of the reasons the clean energy sector is starved of funding is because mainstream investors worry that renewable energy only works with direct government support,” said Michael Liebreich, chief executive of New Energy Finance. “This analysis shows that the global direct subsidy for fossil fuels is around ten times the subsidy for renewables.

Fossil Fuel Subsidies Are 12 Times Support for Renewables, Study Shows
By Alex Morales - Jul 29, 2010 9:59 AM PST Thu Jul 29 16:59:49 UTC 2010

NASA: Climate Change May Bring Big Ecosystem Changes
http://steveothegreat7.blogspot.com/2011/12/nasa-climate-change-may-bring-big.html
JPL/NASA, 14 December 2011 By 2100, global climate change will modify plant communities covering almost half of Earth's land surface and will drive the conversion of nearly 40 percent of land-based ecosystems from one major ecological community type - such as forest, grassland or tundra - toward another, according to a new NASA and university computer modeling study.

All the babble about the high cost of renewable energy completely ignores the external costs of climate induced ecosystem changes

Poirot

Yes, I agree with your first sentence, but how can these people be concurrently funding the Green movement AND the Skeptics as you say?

The fact that many former and present major corporates and the mega rich substantially fund the climate movement was always a puzzle to me until I realised that the money extracted from the West will not go to the Developing nations but will be 'managed' by the mega wealthy under the guise of a climate fund throught the World Bank.

The rationale of 'saving the planet' is merely a ruse to collect money, they hope by legal treaty, from which point it will go to the UN who will distribute it 'as it sees fit' ie to itself to increase its own power and to its mega wealthy associates. Little will go to Africa ostensibly because they are not meeting 'climate obligations'.

In the meantime Africa will have its development delayed or controlled by denial of funds which they will incur if they dare to use fossil fuels consequently increasing their disadvantage. As Africa is resource rich, many countries might be willing to allow their resources to be 'managed' by guess who??

After all why the hell would Rothschild be a the 1992 Rio Earth Summit? He wasn't there to undermine his own investments but to sure them up for the future

Prompete,

If you don't understand sexual competition and aggression you must be either living under a rock or totally devoid of human sex hormones.

Usually people avoid this understanding because they are working the social equality "angle" while maintaining sexual aggression privately. Al Gore comes to mind and I suspect our current author. You seem to be different so explaining the uncompromising brutality of human sex hormones to you is like explaining the second law of thermodynamics to a frog.

Warning:
In the battle of the sexes, don't be an unarmed bystander and DONT be an ENVIRONMENTAL ASSET!

Hiya bonmot,

Great clip.

eyejaw,

I myself don't tune to radio Pyongyang, but I'll take your word for it.

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/index.php?mapid=1263

http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Exxon_Mobil

Here's a lengthy paper by Clive Hamilton delivered to a conference in Brussels in 2010, titled "Why We Resist the Truth About Climate Change"

http://www.clivehamilton.net.au/cms/media/why_we_resist_the_truth_about_climate_change.pdf

Poirot-

Can you explain why the rich and the UN fund the Green movement, if as you say, they also fund big corporates? Unless you can answer that question you cannot understand what climate change is all about.

I trust Clive Hamilton is not trying to silence dissent? Silencing of dissent is one of his big beefs - excpet when it comes to climate change of course.

Poirot
And Clive Hamilton got to the conference by row-boat, I suppose, just as you have stopped using fossil fuels to avoid hypocrisy?

Hamilton has simply done what you and the author have done. He makes no attempt to show that we are faced with catastrophic man-made global warming. He just unquestioningly assumes it on the basis of... what? He doesn't say. He makes no attempt to deal with the issues of climate science, flaccidly pretending they don't exist. Such an approach is mere credulity, not science; and as Hamilton's entire ethical case rests on that fallacy, so his ethics are just as irrational.

It might seem that this is a one-off, but the *entire discourse on global warming* uniformly proceeds in exactly the same way. Everyone who urges it simply refers off to someone else urging it. That's it. No-one actually comes up with the science. The IPCC is not a scientific body, it's a political body. All we get are links to absent authority, and when we follow them up, they involve flagrant illogic and malfeasance: an endless tide, a Hydra of fallacies. Point them out and ten more spring up in their place.

And the latest Climategate emails show
- the World Bank telling the IPCC what to put in its report
- the warmists secretly arguing amongst themselves about the exact same points the skeptics were pointing out, i.e. that the warmists don't have a leg to stand on, while simultaneously telling the skeptics that they were mad, the science is settled, and all the rest of it.

And the mere epigones of people have the gall to talk down to others about disregard for "science"? What a joke.

Of course there is no hope of Poirot ever referring us to the science that supposedly establishes the AGW case. All we will ever get is the same kind of referral off to circular irrational anti-human anti-freedom pro-power, pro-looting articles of faith - and then she has the gall to complain about government-sponsored looting!

Peter Hume,

The science apparently is never settled, although an overwhelming majority of scientists support the proposition of AGW.
That these scientist are now being thoroughly denigrated leads one to conclude it's because their conclusions will interfere with the status quo.

I'm not a scientist and nor are you. And as far as I can see there aren't an abundance of climatologists contributing to OLO (so far I've counted one)...doesn't seem to stop all and sundry spouting their opinion though.

Why shouldn't Clive Hamilton analyse the ethics surrounding climate change denial? After all, we never hear people dissenting when there's a breakthrough in medical science (for example). Most of us contributing know as much about that as we do about climatology....however, we appear to trust the medical scientists to adhere to ethical practice. Could it be that there is currently no organised movement to denigrate them?

To all the global warming deniers. I to am not a Scientist Scientist or a denialist but take organizations like NASA seriously, because their experts can see what is happening on the ground from the Space Station and other satellite data. These people put the man on the moon and I know they have more relevant experience and knowledge in their big toe than the all the denialist on this list have in their brains.

According to NASA Climate Change May Bring Big Ecosystem Changes
http://steveothegreat7.blogspot.com/2011/12/nasa-climate-change-may-bring-big.html
JPL/NASA, 14 December 2011. By 2100, global climate change will modify plant communities covering almost half of Earth's land surface and will drive the conversion of nearly 40 percent of land-based ecosystems from one major ecological community type - such as forest, grassland or tundra - toward another, according to a new NASA and university computer modeling study.

Also this denialist babble about the high cost of renewable energy completely ignores the external costs of climate induced ecosystem changes and the fact that expenditure on coping with climate change costsone twentyith less that dodgy fossil lobbyists are already spending

Poirot
"The science apparently is never settled, although an overwhelming majority of scientists support the proposition of AGW."

Science proceeds by reason and evidence, not headcounts and groupthink: Fallacy 1.

Anyway, take away from that "overwhelming majority" those with a vested interest and see it disappear.

"That these scientist are now being thoroughly denigrated leads one to conclude it's because their conclusions will interfere with the status quo."

You haven't eliminated the possibility that it's because they cannot rationally defend their claims, and neither can you, which is what's in issue.

Fallacy 2: circularity.

"I'm not a scientist and nor are you. And as far as I can see there aren't an abundance of climatologists contributing to OLO (so far I've counted one)...doesn't seem to stop all and sundry spouting their opinion though."

Personal argument; irrelevance: Fallacy 3.

What you need to do is provide *evidence* and *reason*, that we are faced with catastrophic man-made global warming which policy can necessarily improve after taking account of all the downsides.

You haven't done so because you cannot do so, therefore you have lost the argument.

"Why shouldn't Clive Hamilton analyse the ethics surrounding climate change denial?"

Because he hasn't established, and cannot establish, the proposition that is being denied, thus assuming what is in issue.

Fallacy 4: more circularity.

"After all, we never hear people dissenting when there's a breakthrough in medical science (for example). Most of us contributing know as much about that as we do about climatology....however, we appear to trust the medical scientists to adhere to ethical practice."

Speak for yourself. Medicine is often the subject of pseudo-science by vested interests, for example drug companies - exactly paralleling the situation with climate science.

Appeal to absent authority; circularity; invincible credulity: Fallacy 5.

"Could it be that there is currently no organised movement to denigrate them?"

Assumes what's in issue: Fallacy 6
Ad hominem: Fallacy 7.

That's it folks. You're looking at all the AGW camp has to offer.

PEST
The problem is not with what the scientific bodies are saying. You, Poirot, Clive Hamilton, and Ethan are all quite right in saying that these bodies are saying that we face CAGW.

The problem is in the science itself. It does not support what the scientific bodies are saying. That's why, when I ask you to supply the actual *science* - not press releases of government-funded bodies - you can't do it.

The reason you can't do it, is because it doesn't exist.

The *method* you are using - just blindly accepting what someone else says, is not science.

Okay? Got that? There is no scientific basis for what you're saying. You are taking it on blind faith, and when anyone asks you, or anyone else, to actually stump up the science that supposedly supports the proposition, all we get - in any forum - is just more of what Hamilton and Poirot have just done:
"It is because it is."
"It must be so because it must be so."
"It is because someone told me."
"It is because the government said so."

So please either admit that you have no rational basis for your argument or:
1. prove that we face catastrophic global warming - NOT BY MERE FLACCID APPEAL TO ABSENT AUTHORITY, SHOWS US THE ACTUAL SCIENCE
2. show what account you have taken of the upsides of AGW, and how you know that the downsides would be greater. Prove it.
3. show what account you have taken of the downsides of policy action and how you know that the upsides would be greater. Prove it.

Honestly, this is like talking to dark ages peasants with an invincible circular faith in religion. The only difference is that you have replaced the church with the state.

Peter Hume,

You're being a tad hypocritical... almost everything you stated in your last post applies to the denialist camp also.

I didn't notice you "supplying the actual science" denying the AGW proposition in your recent posts

I don't plan to continue arguing the point in this instance. Suffice to say that I prefer to go with the evidence presented by respected scientific institutions, while you take your cue from scientists connected with think tanks that are funded largely by big oil and other corporate interests

“We must recognise that the UN is the best system we have to find solutions to the climate crisis”.

This may be the most puerile statement on climate change that we have seen in articles on OLO.

The UN is not a system, it is a centre of corruption, which backs the greatest attempted fraud the world has ever seen.

The first lie fest to back this fraud was the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Those which have followed have been equally dishonest, and more ineffective.

The definition of climate change for the Conference contains the words “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity.”

There is no measurable effect of human activity on climate, so the convention is based on something which is negligible, and of no consequence, like the Convention itself.

If countries introduce legislation to give a mandated value to something valueless, like “carbon credits”, then those having the power to create these credits will make trillions in profits. Those handling the trading markets will make billions. The UN will have its sticky fingers in both.

There is no scientific basis for the assertion that human emissions have any but a negligible effect on climate. If Julia Gillard urinated in the Harbour in front of Kirribilli, we would know that the Harbour was polluted, but the pollution would have no effect and would not be scientifically measurable.

The UN is unaccountable and fraudulent, and we should withdraw from any treaty on climate change, now that it is obvious that the Kyoto protocol is a failure, as a result of its dishonest basis.

Poirot, do you understand that what you're saying is circular, or are you not aware of it?

For example one of the scientific issues is with the so-called tropospheric hotspot. According to the mainstream global warming theory, rising carbon dioxide emissions mean that warmth should be bouncing back off a layer in the troposphere - the roof of the alleged greenhouse. The only problem is, they can't find it. That's why I have repeatedly invited warmists for a peer-reviewed scientific paper showing *temperature* measurements of the trophospheric hotspot. No-one has ever answered me. Why not? Because no such scientific paper exists. Why not? They've spent billions trying to find this hotspot; they've bodgied up surrogate measures for temperature measurements such as wind-shear measurements. But no temperature measurements. Why not? Because the tropospheric hotspot doesn't exist. Yet the whole theory depends on it.

So your accusation that it's "hypocritical" of me not to disprove AGW only shows your unfamiliarity with basic concepts of logical thought. The onus of proving a proposition is on the person asserting it. Until the warmists prove there is a greenhouse in reality - not just in their models - then there's nothing for me to prove or disprove. You've simply got an assertion - totally unbacked by science - being dogmatically insisted on without evidence by your "respected" scientific bodies.

Why are they doing that, do you think? It's obviously not because their theory is correct. What other reason might there be?

Why do you respect them?

Why doesn't it concern you that what you're saying is not true?

Why do you take refuge in illogic, even after it's been pointed out that it's illogical? What possible benefit could you get from this behaviour?

Peter Hume,

Nice to note that you're adhering to your usual line that anyone you engage in debate is resorting to circular argument....surely you can come up with a new line.

....and I realise that you're deploying the "tropospheric hot spot" as the skeptics trump card, as if it immediately diminishes man made influences on global warming. Lord Monckton does that too - apparently.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Dispelling-two-myths-about-the-tropospheric-hot-spot.html

There’s no need for me to “come up with a new line” while ever your argument consists of:
1. Assuming we face AGW without proving it
2. Attempting to prove it by posting links that prove my case, not yours.

You obviously didn’t read the link you just posted. I didn’t ask whether there are *models* of the tropospheric hotspot. We know that! I asked whether there are *actual temperature measurements* of it.

“There is a good theoretical basis for this expectation…”

Translation: our models say there should be a tropospheric hotspot.

“Unfortunately, actually determining what is happening in the real tropical troposphere has proven to be quite difficult”

Translation: but we have no real world evidence of temperature measurements to support our theory, despite spending billions of dollars of other people’s money trying to find it.

“Although on seasonal and annual scales, some radiosonde records are in relatively good agreement with theoretical and modeling expectations, on decadal timescales, they show less warming or even cooling of the upper troposphere.”

Translation: our models are wrong.

“However, the tropics, especially at higher altitudes, are a notorious problem area for most if not all of the older radiosonde networks.”

Translation: the evidence does not support our theory.

“And attempts to stitch together longer records from multiple networks (and integrate them with newer satellite records) have introduced problems as well.”

Translation: stitch up the evidence as we did, we still couldn't get it to support our theory.

“ There have been many attempts to quantify and remove these biases …[but] the real world behavior of the troposphere is still unclear”

Translation: it’s clear all right - it clearly doesn’t support our theory.

“Allen and Sherwood … examined … wind shear.”

Translation: being COMPLETELY UNABLE to prove by temperature measurements, we desperately substituted wind-shear measurements, hoping someone, anyone, somewhere would buy this crock of sh!t.

Put aside the pathetic excuses, and this is all you’ve got: NO actual scientific temperature measurements of the tropospheric hotspot on which the entire theory depends.

And that’s a warmist's DEFENCE of the actual science! Unbelievable.

"Durban added to these successes by extending the Kyoto Protocol, establishing the Green Climate Fund, recognising the 'emissions gap', and agreeing to a legally binding agreement for both developed and developing countries by 2015."

No it didn't!

The Kyoto protocol has lapsed. Some countries agreed to keep their targets, but the binding agreement has lapsed.

The climate fund has been established but with almost no commitment to actually fund it.

The countries have agreed to negotiate a binding agreement. No agreement has actually been achieved, other than nothing binding will come into effect before 2020.

The EU ETS has been shown to be toothless, and most other countries have abandoned any carbon price. Australia is pretty much alone.

AGW relies on there being a Tropical Hot Spot [THS]; there is none; ergo another reason for declaring AGW a failed theory; even the AGW 'scientists' agree there is no THS, see point 1 here:

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3707172.html

Elaborating on this since a comment claimed:

"The hot spot has nothing to do with AGW or the radiative properties of water. It's because of a reduction in the lapse rate as a result of the moist adiabat reducing with added water vapour."

This is completely wrong; the THS is really a function of water vapor feedback, not a first order forcing. You don’t see it in MODTRAN as implemented on line because a surface temperature offset entered in MODTRAN only affects the temperature up through 10 km and its constant. You get the THS only if the lapse rate decreases as temperature goes up because the moist lapse rate gets lower as specific humidity goes up (higher energy content/kg). A decreasing lapse rate is actually a negative feedback, but the increased radiation from increased water vapour [SH] is supposed to more than make up for that.

Say the lapse rate is 6.5 K/km and the surface temperature is 300 K. Then the temperature at 10 km would be 235 K (300-6.5*10). Now let’s raise the surface temperature by 10 K and lower the lapse rate to 6 K/km. In this case the surface temperature is 310 K and the temperature at 10 km is 250 K (310-6*10). So the surface has warmed by 10 K and the 10 km temperature has gone up by 15 K. That’s the source and the signature, but with smaller numbers, of the THS

"The countries have agreed to negotiate a binding agreement. No agreement has actually been achieved, other than nothing binding will come into effect before 2020."

In other words, they are trying to scrape off the egg adhering to their visage as inconspicuously as possible, and trusting that the fall guy will be on someone else's watch, in the manner of democratic politicians whose time-horizon is no further than the next election, presuming to lecture everyone else on how to fine-tune the weather in 500 years time. It is truly a disgusting spectacle.