Whoopee according to the author and his 'stink', I mean think tank, AGW isn't happening. Stink tanks (Freud would make much of my slip) tend to make a conclusion then select evidence to support it. Science however, does that in reverse...silly scientists.

The Lead article on author's site was
"IPCC Ignored Warning That Glacier Forecast Was Wrong" was right to say was that the 35 years timetable was based on an educated opinion. Naughty, naughty, hyperbole... and the authors site is... At best it focuses on the sizzle (politics)...forget the steak(facts).

What it doesn't say was the unprecedented decrease in glaciers generally, the 80 or so that have gone in the USA this century, and the reductions in the glaciers in the Andes, Africa, PNG (4th tallest mountain.) and the results from satellite "GRACE" and Like.

So what if these glaciers took 10,000's of years to accumulate. Short of an ice age the consequences of their demise will be diabolical.

Did I mention the proven reductions (grace) in the depth of the arctic/Antarctic ice.
yep his site is independent...objective? well not so much.Still it's well.....er.....anyway.

If he is right that it's all gonna go away in the public' s eye I only hope that the environment, Global climate is equally swayed by his loaded prose.

The deniers may well win the battle but we'll lose the war.

As hasbeen, in his infinite scientific knowledge, has said we should say thanks the 3rd world (well actually...international politics but let's not quibble) .

The author is a social anthropologist with an interest in how people/societies react to situations such as AGW. He probably knows about as much as I do about glaciology, the troposphere etc. The thesis of his article seems to be: Copenhagen failed (as he predicted) due to international politics and therefore climate science is discredited. I find that line of argument ridiculous as should every reader. And by the way Hasbeen, if you read up on Y2K hopefully you will stop using it as an example of a hoax (I certainly didn't spend 1999 fixing a hoax!).

Whilst I suspect the Author is largely right that we are going to fail to take effective action on climate change, I think it won't be any kind of victory; it will be a serious mistake that will hurt future generations greatly.

For all the claims that climate science is on shaky ground, that perception flies in the face of actual science done by the world's leading scientific institutions. Accusations and insinuations are about the most of it. Hot spikes in warming trends are held up as proof of cooling, short lived cold spells across large areas (whilst deliberately ignoring above average temperatures across even larger areas) are held up as cooling; a decade with 8 of the 10 hottest years on record, the highest sea level rise, the greates retreat of glaciers and melting of ice-sheets is held up as "cooling"!

Warming hasn't stopped and only by dismissing actual science from the world's leading scientific institutions can any claims otherwise be sustained. It's not climate science that's promoting climate change delusion, it's people like Benny Peiser. Failure to deal with AGW is going to hurt us deeply.

Dr. Peiser, it’s hard to argue the reality presented in your article, unless its fingers in ears shouting La, La, La.

I question your issue of “loss of Western dominance”, I’ve never seen the climate change phenomena as a tool for conflict between the West and developing nations. More as an attempt by the EU to undermine US carbon intensive industrial dominance through energy costs/penalties.

It seems to have backfired badly since the EU is left with the only carbon trading system but with no means to draw more funds from outside the EU through carbon trading. Even less chance of imposing carbon compliance penalties or adverse trading terms on the rest of the developed world.

The EU’s carbon market has collapsed to $18.50, it’s riddled with fraud, “green revenues” are in decline and the EU is already geared to 46.7% (heading for 50.0%) of its GDP being spent on government. The US figure is 20.5%, the EU has no chance. I think the EU might have created the seeds of its own destruction. This is entirely predictable when you are run by committee.

In my view, the other alliances you mention are a consequence of the EU’s strategy rather than a cause. The EU Parliament was founded on protectionism as a trading block, it has basically and quite cynically, offered the rest of the world a trade off, tariff relief in exchange for “Carbon Club Membership”.

Given the vast sums of money already invested in AGW and Green energy (HSBC estimates $74 Billion over the last ten years), this phenomena will take years to untangle financially. Whilst some good might come out of this level of investment, it seems likely that green energy from the private sector will shrink (high costs/low returns) and the public sector will have to take the initiative. This will further compound the EU’s problems.

China, Russia and India seem set to only “tune” carbon intensity but with absolutely no external monitoring. The undeveloped world and green NGO’s will have to put their begging bowls away.

I can’t wait for Copenhagen MKIII in Mexico.

Taswegian - if fossil fuel production peaks in the very near future, anthropogenic CO2 emissions will decline without the help of taxes or financial engineering. I see so many AGW believers defending the IPCC story by arguing that in any case we need to deal with the imminent depletion of fossil fuels, when in fact this is a direct contradition.

Benny Peiser draws attention to the loss of credibility of the IPCC.
If I might enumerate;

1. The hockey stick.
2. The email publicising. Not a hack, but an inside job I believe.
3. The New Zealand temperature problem.
4. The Himalayan glaciers melt by 2035 blunder.
5. The acceptance of donations to study the melt while knowing it was wrong.
6. The Stern report error & cover up of the amount of damage expected
from hurricanes, cyclones etc etc.
7. The ripping off of the Europeans by the Russian Oligarchs of CO2 credits.
Have I missed any ?

This it would seem is only the beginning.

I think the demands of the developing countries for money was a
transparent bit of blackmail and together with China's demand that
"Trust me" was the way to go when we all see blatant Chinese ripoffs
of intellectual property rights, was a trust too far.

I just wonder how many countries were aware of the seven points I made
above and basically had had enough.
Copenhagen was doomed by the IPCC's bad management and developing
countries greed and western distrust.