« Rising Sun | Main | If there is no Quagmire, it is necessary to invent one »

Rally in Bali for Global Folly

Nearly 20,000 heads of state, environmental activists, reporters, Al Gore, and other assorted nitwits gathered in Bali, Indonesia to plan for Life After Kyoto, because the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. Despite the lack of effectiveness of Kyoto, the burning need for governments to seize dictatorial power over their economies drives the movement to replace it. That's why it was so important to burn so much jet fuel to get to Bali, instead of merely video-conferencing and saving tons of greenhouse gas emissions.

The result? Well, they agreed to a "framework" or "road map" - presumably similar to the fabulous plans which led to peace in the Middle East - and to meet again in 2009. Irwin Stetzler analyzes for the Weekly Standard:

Even the emerging favorite in the United States and Europe, a cap on emissions followed by a trading of permits, is a hide-the-cost device: costs of compliance will be passed on as higher prices. So the blame will go to auto manufacturers, supermarkets, electric utilities, and oil companies, the applause to politicians. All so politicians can avoid the transparent device of a tax on carbon or carbon emissions, which can, after all, be offset by reductions in other taxes.

Which brings us back to Bali, where the negotiators had two main tasks. The first was to formulate an agenda that keeps America in the emissions-reduction game, which they seem to have accomplished by a combination of pressure and the application of a dollop of fudge to the final draft agreement. The second was to attract the developing countries, most notably China and India, into the game, which they have accomplished with promises of goodies for developing nations--these from developed nations that have yet to honor their pledges of financial support to Iraq and Afghanistan. Whether the agreed "roadmap" will prove as useless as the one designed to bring peace to Israel remains to be seen. Words on paper are not quite the same thing as real reductions in emissions.

* * * * *

Nor will renewables provide a free lunch. Offshore wind power, the poster-boy du jour of Greenpeace, "is more expensive than gas-fired," notes Alan Moore, who is no less than the managing director of National Wind Power. And those awful windmills might ruin his view, says environmental advocate Ted Kennedy; he is leading the battle against an offshore wind farm visible from his family's waterfront compound on Cape Cod.


Read the whole article at the above link. Naturally, it's all about being able to raise taxes for more government revenue. Those naive enough to believe these new revenues would then somehow be used to "solve" global warming or other environmental problems should ponder this: if any reasonable and affordable "solution" were known, someone would be getting rich from producing it already. Money in the hands of the government goes . . . well, no one is exactly sure where it goes, except that it rarely arrives at the stated purpose for raising it, and never achieves the proclaimed goals.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/26243.

Comments (13)

The matter of greatest inte... (Below threshold)

The matter of greatest interest to me is how and whether these assorted dictator-wannabes will contrive to keep the general public sufficiently frightened of the climate-change bug-bear, now so thoroughly discredited as to warrant a server of its own on Snopes, that ordinary, well-meaning persons will continue to surrender their freedom to "battle" this chimera.

Here's an idea; <a href="ht... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Here's an idea; Let policy follow science: Tie a carbon tax to actual warming.

Dr Vincent Gray, a member of the UN IPCC Expert Reviewers Panel since its inception, has written to Professor David Henderson, to support the latter's call for a review of the IPCC and its procedures. He says "I therefore consider that the IPCC is fundamentally corrupt. The only "reform" I could envisage, would be its abolition."

So we have a fundamentally corrupt UN committee using junk science and useful fools like Al Gore to gain control of world energy production, and thus, the world's economies. The stated goal of the environmentalists in charge of the IPCC is wealth redistribution. Thank God for President Bush. The IPCC is losing it's ability to suppress real science and by the time 2009 roles around real science will show the world what a scam the IPCC has been from day one.

Money in the hands of g... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Money in the hands of government goes well for some administrations it goes to the military/industrial complex and a war for oil, ask Ike and Alan Greenspan

Global warming is the most important issue of our time and but is no wonder conservatives have completely dropped the ball on this. Worried about cost of moving to cleaner fuels you are prepared to drop well over a trillion dollars on a war to remake Iraq a shiite theocracy and have have no qualms about dropping world war tonnages of missiles in order to do it, but when 90% of the scientists say that urgent peaceful action is needed to avert a global ecological diasaster you say that is complete folly for governments to attempt this.

Liberals like to complain a... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Liberals like to complain about the poor intelligence used to justify the invasion of Iraq, but they're blind to similar poor intelligence when it comes to global warming. The so called consensus is a hoax.

Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations

"The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it."

100 scientists signed this letter.

"...when 90% of the scienti... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

"...when 90% of the scientists ..."

Another vague meaningless appeal to a faux "consensus". When the AGW advocates start acting like scientists, I'll pay attention to them.

Mac Lorry..I coudn't get th... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Mac Lorry..I coudn't get the second link, but these 100 scientists (I think) are not your top flight scientists...normally from smaller less prestigious universities..Hey, I'm not a hard scientist either, grduated in Politics and Psychology..but what I remember is that carbon's place in the periodic table was essential and perhaps unique for life developing on Earth. Maybe this helps.

Greenhouse gases make up only about 1 per cent of the atmosphere, but they act like a blanket around the earth...Carbon dioxide is responsible for over 60 per cent of the "enhanced greenhouse effect." Humans are burning coal, oil, and natural gas at a rate that is much, much faster than the speed at which these fossil fuels were created. This is releasing the carbon stored in the fuels into the atmosphere and upsetting the carbon cycle, the millennia-old, precisely balanced system by which carbon is exchanged between the air, the oceans, and land vegetation. Currently, atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide are rising by over 10 per cent every 20 years.
As someone said long our carbon emisions from smokestacks are like "coal mines in the air".

MacLorry, The link came th... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

MacLorry, The link came through now. and I still don't see the eminent universities represented..I forgotten who it was who said that scientific truth..it may have been Thomas Kuhn "The structure of scientic revolutions" circa 1969, who said that scentific truth was what the majority of scientists accepted as truth or the reigning pardigm unless a new truth/paradigm came along, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity usually under great resistance to explain an existing anomaly unless he could predict the bending of the sun's rays shown by an eclipse.(which he did). In this case, global warming theorists have been predicting the warming of the globe melting of glaciers, arctic snow cap for the last 5 years...and that is exactly what has been happening, with no major anomalies. so I think we should take that as the new orthodoxy/ paradigm rather than the other way round and act accordingly.

I don't know who is conside... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

I don't know who is considered a top flight scientist, but 3 of the 100 are IPCC expert reviewers. I checked the link and it works. The link is also at the bottom of the letter.

Below is more information on this subject.

Here's a peer-reviewed study that explains all global temperature tendency changes and El Nino variability in the 20th century are caused by natural forces.

Synchronized Chaos: Mechanisms For Major Climate Shifts

New research from Stephen Schwartz of Brookhaven National Lab concludes that the Earth's climate is only about one-third as sensitive to carbon dioxide as the IPCC assumes.

"Consensus"? What "Consensus"?
Among Climate Scientists, The Debate Is Not Over

You have to understand Mac ... (Below threshold)
Veeshir:

You have to understand Mac Lorry, it's their religion. You're attacking their religion, they will respond most forcefully. You can't reason someone out of a belief they were not reasoned into.

I loved your link above to the letter from Henderson. That was beautiful.

You know what I like the best? Asking global warmmongers about solar activity and its relation to the temperature of the Earth. They always look at me as if I'm speaking Entish or something.
The idea that you can make up your mind about the temperature of the Earth without looking into the Sun is like finding your home too warm and first checking the pilot light on your stove.
Besides, global warming is over, we're now in a period of global cooling. And guess what? That will be followed by a period of global warming.

The only global warming I would really worry about? When the Sun goes nova and burns the Earth to a cinder. That'll be a bad day. Having the Earth's temperature go up or down as it's always done? Not so much.

Some more links:<a... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Some more links:

Climate Change Prediction: A Robust or Flawed Process

A New Record for Antarctic Total Ice Extent?

Antarctic temperatures disagree with climate model predictions

New study claims UN IPCC peer-review process is "an illusion."

There's lots more like this. Science is finally catching up with the IPCC. The only questions is will the public and government catch up with the science before we sign into law ruinous carbon restrictions?

From the Open Letter to ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

From the Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations:

Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.

Bzzzz! Thanks for playing

You do much better in referencing Schwartz and Tsonis, who are doing very interesting work. You'll notice (if you read the papers) that neither of them deny the influence of CO2, only the magnitude thereof. They definitely don't deny that average global temperatures have continued to rise since 1998.

And Monckton? Are you serious?

Your link to an unattribute... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Your link to an unattributed graph is no counter for peer-reviewed studies, and citing the jokers at RealClimate as a counter to Monckton is amusing. Not even the IPCC believes or shows their hockey stick delusion anymore.

David Evans, a mathematicia... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

David Evans, a mathematician, worked for six years building carbon accounting models for the Australian government. His excellent piece from April 2007 titled "I Was On the Global Warming Gravy Train" is a must read regardless of what you believe about global warming.

In late November 2007 Dr. Evans goes on to publish another impressive paper titled "Carbon Emissions Don't Cause Global Warming" Evans includes the following statement.

"(Gratuitous advice for those whose jobs depend on the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming: Find another job to pay your mortgage and feed your kids!)"




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy