Paris Climate Talks Are Doomed Because China Knows ‘Climate Change’ Is a Hoax

Like a lot of the president’s statements on climate change this isn’t actually true. In fact there are lots and lots of people in the world who know it’s a hoax. And among them, unfortunately, happen to be the ruling elite of the most significant carbon emitting nation of them all: China.

We know this because of a devastating report, released today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, written by one of the West’s leading experts on the Chinese environmental economy, Patricia Adams.

Adams, an economist, executive director of Toronto-based Probe International, who has been working with the Chinese environmental movement since the mid-Eighties, is under absolutely no illusions about China’s real position on “climate change.”

China sees it as a brilliant opportunity to fleece the gullible gwailo for as much money as it can, to burnish its international image by making all the right green noises, and to blackmail the West into providing it with free technology.

But it has no intention whatsoever of sacrificing economic growth by reducing its carbon dioxide emissions.

China knows this. The West either knows this or strongly suspects this. So any agreement reached next week which pretends otherwise will either be a fudge, a lie, or an outright capitulation by Western negotiators – because China knows what it wants and it isn’t budging, no sirree.

Here’s how Adams puts it:

China, the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide, is under intense international pressure to reduce its use of fossil fuels. Although China’s leaders aim to reduce the country’s fossil-fuel consumption to 80% of its energy mix by 2030, they will not forsake national economic growth for the supposed global good. This is because China’s Communist Party knows that to stay in power – its highest priority – it must maintain the economic growth rates that have raised the incomes of much of its population and kept opposition at bay. China’s leaders know that GDP growth is tied to fossil- fuel use.

So far so disastrous for the COP21 negotiations. But worse is to come, far worse.

Obama and other Western leaders like to pretend that China’s appalling air pollution – the “airpocalypse” afflicting major cities which kills at least half a million a year – gives it a strong incentive to reduce its CO2 levels. But in fact the opposite is true.

That’s because China understands – as the West pretends not to – that CO2 and “pollution” are very different things.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Ding, Dong – The Godfather of Global Warming Is Dead!

His name was Maurice Strong (picture above, on the right), Canadian billionaire, diplomat and UN apparatchik, and though you may not have heard of him, he probably did more to make your world a more expensive, inconvenient, overregulated, hectored, bullied, lied-to, sclerotic, undemocratic place than anyone post Hitler, Stalin and (his personal friend) Mao.

He’s the reason, for example, that most of the world’s leaders, 40,000 delegates and their attendant carbon mega-footprint descended here on Paris yesterday in order to talk about magical fairy dust for two weeks and then charge you $1.5 trillion (that’s per year, by the way) for the privilege.

He’s the reason that “climate change” is now so heavily embedded within our system of global governance that it is now almost literally impossible for any politician or anyone else whose career depends on the state to admit that’s it not a problem and to argue that there are more important issues in the world, like maybe the terrorism that killed over 130 innocent people just the other week now, where was it?- oh yeah, here in Paris where for some bizarre reason all the delegates are talking about carbon emissions instead…

He was the father of the mother of all climate summits: the one in Rio in 1992 that spawned a million and one bastard offspring, like the one in Paris now.

He was the main instigator of the blueprint for arguably the most sinister and insidious assault on liberty and free markets: Agenda 21.

If you had met him – if you’d even noticed him – you would have probably quite liked him:

One of the most remarkable things about Strong was how unremarkable he was in person. Somebody once said that you wouldn’t pick him out of a crowd of two.

Nevertheless, he was an avuncular and likeable figure, even to those who disagreed strongly with his world view, as I did. I interviewed him numerous times over a 20-year period, and found that he took scarcely-concealed delight in explaining his often Machiavellian political manoeuvrings.

But as I argue in Watermelons – which gave a lot of space to Strong – it’s a big mistake to expect that supervillains will always have scars down the side of their face and fluffy white cat on their lap.

Strong’s true evil lay in the effects of his acts, not in his (claimed) good intentions.

Then again, the mask did occasionally slip.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Twelve Reasons Why the Paris Climate Talks Are a Total Waste

Here is why they might just as well not have bothered.

1. There has been no ‘global warming’ since 1997

monckton1

So, of all the children round the world currently being taught in schools about the perils of man-made global warming, not a single one has lived through a period in which the planet was actually warming.

2. The polar bears are doing just great.

As they have been for the last five decades, during which time their population has increased roughly five-fold. So why does the IUCN still classify them as “vulnerable”? Because the environmentalists needed a cute, fluffy white poster-child for their “the animals are dying and it’s all our fault” campaign, and the snail darter and the California delta smelt just didn’t cut it. So various tame conservation biologists came up with all sorts of nonsense about how polar bear populations were dwindling and how the melting of the ice floes would jeopardize their ability to feed themselves etc. How can you tell a conservation biologist is lying? When his lips move.

3. Antarctica is growing.

According to the greenies, this just wasn’t meant to happen. But it is. Even NASA admits this.

4. The Maldives aren’t sinking

Or, if they are, their government is responding in a very odd way. Just a few years back, they were staging photos of their Cabinet meeting underwater to symbolize how threatened they were by “climate change” – a problem that could only be cured, apparently, with the donation of large sums of guilt money from rich Western industrialized nations. But a few months ago they completed work on their 11th international airport. So that all the climate refugees caused by global warming can escape quickly, presumably.

5. Ocean acidification is a myth

If I were an eco-Nazi I would seriously think about killing myself at this point. Ocean acidification was supposed to be their Siegfried Line – the final line of defense if, as has grown increasingly obvious over the last few years, “anthropogenic global warming” theory proved to be a busted flush. But it turns out that ocean acidification is as big a myth as man-made climate change. a) it’s based on dubious, possibly even fraudulent, research and b) if anyone’s acidifying the ocean it’s those wretched bloody coral reefs

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Politico Trolls for Paris Climate Talks, ‘Praises’ George W. Bush

Top trolling, Politico!

Well, nearly.

Unfortunately, Politico’s snickering reporters can’t resist giving the game away with gleeful asides like: “That may come as a shock considering modern-day Republicans are bent on derailing the Paris negotiations and overturning pretty much all of Obama’s green agenda.”

No, actually it doesn’t come a shock. The shock would be if, for the first time since January 2001, the progressives finally found something for which George W Bush wasn’t to blame.

Anyway, according to Politico’s laboured, convoluted theory, George W Bush is to blame/thank for next week’s Paris talks because of what his negotiators agreed at an earlier UN climate conference in Bali in 2007. WARNING: the following “explanatory” paragraph is so boring and worthless I seriously don’t recommend you read it because you’ll want to gouge your own eyeballs out with a fork.

For the first time ever, countries of all shapes, sizes and economic means pledged to pony up commitments to address global warming. The agreement came with a very wonky sounding name — the Bali Action Plan — and it provided only a very rough outline of where future negotiations would need to go. But what the Bush administration helped create in Bali stands to this day because it eliminated perhaps the biggest political albatross blocking major action in the United States and around the world on international climate policy: Finally, fast-growing developing countries like China, Brazil, India and South Africa were on record saying they would submit cleanup plans of their own.

Pathetic. Here’s what actually happened at that Bali conference in 2007.

It was attended by 15,000 politicians and activists from 180 countries, most of whom — led by Al Gore, fresh from picking up his Nobel peace prize in Norway — saw it as their main purpose to jeer and whine at the US for having failed to ratify the Kyoto protocol ten years before.

In Bali, the US position remained much as it had been at Kyoto — that the US would not sign an agreement to cut its emissions unless fast-growing economies like India and China agreed to do likewise.

Eventually, under enormous pressure, the US negotiators reached  a classic fudge: no mandatory cuts would be agreed — but there would be more conferences in the future.

In other words, with a gun held to their head by 179 UN member states, the US negotiators — not George W Bush, who didn’t turn up — reluctantly took the line of least resistance and agreed to kick the can down the road.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

On The Eve of COP21 Paris Talks: World Just Doesn’t Care about Global Warming Any More

Most people in most of the 20 countries surveyed say they don’t want their leaders to set ambitious climate targets.

Fewer than half describe climate change as a “very serious” problem.

The survey, conducted by GlobeScan for the BBC, could scarcely have come at a worst time for the global environmental movement. After the disastrous failure of the last major climate conference in Copenhagen in 2009, they have been pulling out all the stops to make the talks which begin in Paris next week a success.

Earlier this year UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon flew to the Vatican to enlist the Pope’s support; President Obama has declared that there is “no greater threat” than climate change; John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and the Prince of Wales have all said it’s worse than terrorism; the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has helped out by erasing “the Pause” in global warming; the IUCN has magicked up a study claiming the doing-just-fine polar bears are in trouble….

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Evil Oil-Guzzling Bastard Immortalised in Art

Damien Hirst, Grayson Perry, James Delingpole: all winners of major art prizes. I was awarded mine last week by Anglia Ruskin University (formerly Anglia Polytechnic) which I think is a bit like Cambridge (it’s in the same town), though bizarrely its excellence has yet to filter through to the official UK uni rankings, where it’s rated 115th out of a list of 123.

Anyway, the point is, I won. Sort of. I ‘won’ this extremely important prize in the way that Michael Mann, the shifty climate scientist, has been known to claim he ‘won’ the Nobel prize when it was awarded to the IPCC. That is, the prize wasn’t handed to me personally but I did play my part.

What happened was this. Anglia Ruskin staged a ‘Sustainable Art’ competition and the winning entry was a 6ft high mock stone slab (made out of plywood) engraved with the names of six notorious ‘climate deniers’ including me, Christopher Booker and Lord Lawson, no less.

It’s a handsome piece of art, clever too because in ingenious installation-y style a continual stream of symbolic engine oil cascades down the face of the slab, which bears the legend ‘Lest we forget those who denied.’ But I think what probably clinched it wasn’t the design or the technical skill but the impeccable correctness of its politics.

The piece’s creator, a third-year fine art student called Ian Wolter, clearly knows how to please a sustainability prize judging panel. He declared: ‘With this work I envisage a time when the deliberate denial of climate change will be seen as a crime because it hinders progress towards a low-carbon future.’

So young, so certain. I wonder what deep background research led him to form this considered view. Actually, no I don’t, because it’s obvious. He’ll have got it from his science and geography teachers at school; from BBC nature documentaries and news reports; from comedians like Dara Ó Briain and Marcus Brigstocke; from celebrity mathematician Simon Singh, whispery-voiced gorilla-hugger David Attenborough and pouty-mouthed astronomer Brian Cox; from every other article in the Guardian; from the Science Museum in London; from Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth; from his fellow students and university professors; from the ‘97 per cent’ of scientists who, so legend has it, say the science on global warming is settled… .

Never once, in all likelihood, will young Ian ever in his entire life have been put in a position where he has been given intellectual permission even to consider the possibility that the sceptics might have a point. Like a member of the Hitler Youth who knows that Jews are bad because, well everyone knows they are, Ian can scarcely be blamed for thinking as he does. He’s just another helpless stooge of the prevailing culture.

‘Ah but things will change,’ I expect many of you breezily imagine. ‘Sooner or later, we’ll come up with the killer piece of evidence that decides the issue either way. And then we’ll all know exactly where we are and what to do.’

But this isn’t going to happen. The reason I know it’s not going to happen is that that killer evidence is already in, lots of it in fact. We know for certain that despite almost all the computer models’ predictions there has been no global warming for more than 18 years; we know — this is currently the subject of a major investigation by the Global Warming Policy Foundation — that the raw data has been so heavily tampered with that all those ‘hottest year ever’ claims are utterly bogus; we know that ocean acidification is just another myth, that the ‘97 per cent’ figure is a fraud, that all the predictions about species extinction, resource depletion and other green fantasies have been wildly exaggerated.

Yet the green caravan trundles on regardless. I saw this in Rome last week, where I’d gone to cover a visit by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, who had come to the Vatican to persuade the Pope that he should join the war on ‘climate change’. A rival conference had been staged by a delegation from the free-market think-tank the Heartland Institute, which wanted to make the counter-argument: that catastrophic man-made global warming theory is unsupported by real-world evidence; that the measures being taken to deal with it, far from helping the world’s poor, are immiserating and impoverishing them still further.

The contrast between the two events could scarcely have been greater. At the Vatican, a hefty international press contingent religiously noted down every word, even though nothing of any interest was said — just the usual pieties about ‘sustainability’ and the urgency of the crisis and the needs of ‘future generations’.

At the Heartland event, on the other hand, a series of fascinating, erudite mini-lectures was delivered by a team including a meteorologist, a physicist, an ex-Nasa man who’d helped devise the landing gear for the Apollo project, and a theologian. But it was all utterly wasted on those few journalists who’d bothered to turn up. They weren’t going to allow a few inconvenient facts to get in the way of the real story: ‘Koch–funded cranks roll in to Rome to try to stop His Holiness saving the world.’

Postscript: since writing this piece I have discovered that Ian Wolter, far from being a pre-pubescent art student with no life experience or intellectual foundation is, in fact, even more depressingly, a mature student with a long, distinguished career in business behind him. Oh dear.

This article originally appeared in The Spectator

Related posts:

  1. Climategate: James Randi forced to recant by Warmist thugs for showing wrong kind of scepticism
  2. Climategate goes uber-viral, Gore flees leaving evil henchmen to defend crumbling citadel
  3. Climategate: the official cover-up continues
  4. Climategate: Green Agony Uncle ‘Dear James’ answers your Copenhagen questions

 

Prince of Wales calls for Climate Magna Carta to Cave the Planet from Global Warming

The Prince of Wales has demanded a “Magna Carta for the Earth” in order to save the planet from global warming – thus calling into severe question the abilities of those hapless dons who were charged with teaching him history when he scraped into Cambridge back in the early Seventies.

Had those history professors done their job, Prince Charles would surely be aware that Magna Carta was – at least insofar as it matters to us most today – a charter which protected the rights of the many against the tyranny of unaccountable power. But the kind of sweeping, pan-global, UN-enforced climate treaty the Prince is proposing represents the precise opposite.

Prince Charles, who made his speech to an invited audience at his International Sustainability Unit’s meeting on Forests, Climate Change and Development in London yesterday, is the latest of a number of international celebrities, ranging from rapper Pharrell Williams and President Obama to the Pope, who have spoken of the urgent need for a new global climate agreement.

Nor will he be the last. The purpose of all these high-level declarations of intent is to pave the way for the UN’s next round of climate talks in Paris this December which, campaigners hope, will result in the most significant treaty of concerted international action since the Marshall Plan.

This is what Mary Robinson – former president of Ireland, now the UN’s special envoy on climate change – meant when she told the Guardian that “this is the most important year since 1945.”

What she failed to add is that 1945 (more specifically, Berlin after the Soviets had arrived) is exactly what the global economy will start to resemble if the UN green technocrats get their way. Despite mounting evidence that there is no connection between rising CO2 levels and catastrophic global warming, the UN’s climate “experts” remain resolutely wedded to the idea that “carbon” (aka the natural by-product of almost every industrial process) must be regulated out of existence.

Read the rest at Breitbart London

Related posts:

  1. Prince of Wales to give up his Aston Martin, two Jags, two Audis and Range Rover to save planet. Not.
  2. Global warming is dead. Long live, er, ‘Global climate disruption’!
  3. WTF? Prince of Wales tells disgraced CRU: ‘Well done, all of you!’
  4. Memo to Prince Charles: CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is plant food.

 

Does no one care about the plight of drowning Samoa? Apparently not…

The Prime Minister of Samoa has launched a heartfelt plea in the Guardian newspaper on behalf of his allegedly drowning Pacific nation. (H/T Bufo 75)

Unless concerted international action is taken to deal with the threat of ‘climate change’, apparently, small islands like his will be “inundated by rising sea levels.”

Tragically, it looks as if this request by the splendidly named Tuilaepa Aiono Sailele Malielegaoi, is destined to fall on deaf ears.

Even a fair chunk of the Guardian’s impeccably green, left-liberal readership, it seems, is now sufficiently well-informed to appreciate that sea levels aren’t actually rising in any dramatic, significant or unprecedented way, and that the “drowning Pacific islands” meme is just a piece of a Third World blackmail designed to guilt-trip richer Western nations into stumping up more aid.

Here’s one comment:

I’m afraid that, just as was the case with the Maldives story, this is an utter fraud being attempted by a money grubbing politician.Check the facts about what is happening.

And:

So, Mr. Tuilaepa Aiono Sailele Malielegaoi, just how much money do you want?

And:

And even more to the point, only 7 percent of Samoan land area is below 5m above sea level.So the plea for action for small, vulnerable nations like ours, seems a bit of a stretch as far as Samoa is concerned, even though some other places may be going the way of Atlantis.

Still another commenter points unhelpfully to the fact that most Pacific Islands are in fact growing not sinking.

Read the rest at Breitbart London.

Related posts:

  1. Good news! Sea levels aren’t rising dangerously
  2. How many drowning polar bears can dance on the head of a pin?
  3. There is nothing ‘smart’ about rationing electricity
  4. How ‘tech-savvy’ Barack Obama lost the health care debate thanks to sinister Right-wing blogs like this one

 

Killing Ugandans to Save the Planet

Carbon credit cruelty

Ugandan farmers have been apparently forced off their land as part of a "clean air" programme

Ugandan farmers have been apparently forced off their land as part of a “clean air” programme

I’ve been urged by many readers to report on this disgraceful story: (H/T Tom Nelson and others)

KICUCULA, Uganda — According to the company’s proposal to join a United Nations clean-air program, the settlers living in this area left in a “peaceful” and “voluntary” manner.

People here remember it quite differently.

“I heard people being beaten, so I ran outside,” said Emmanuel Cyicyima, 33. “The houses were being burnt down.”

Other villagers described gun-toting soldiers and an 8-year-old child burning to death when his home was set ablaze by security officers.

But in this case, the government and the company said the settlers were illegal and evicted for a good cause: to protect the environment and help fight global warming.

The case twists around an emerging multibillion-dollar market trading carbon-credits under the Kyoto Protocol, which contains mechanisms for outsourcing environmental protection to developing nations.

The company involved, New Forests Company, grows forests in African countries with the purpose of selling credits from the carbon-dioxide its trees soak up to polluters abroad. Its investors include the World Bank, through its private investment arm, and the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, HSBC.

In 2005, the Ugandan government granted New Forests a 50-year license to grow pine and eucalyptus forests in three districts, and the company has applied to the United Nations to trade under the mechanism. The company expects that it could earn up to $1.8 million a year.

Disgraceful indeed. But though credit is due to Oxfam for exposing the scandal, can anyone detect a whiff of hypocrisy here?

After all, few NGOs are more assiduous than Oxfam in talking up the threat of “Global warming”:

Global warming can be tackled, and disaster avoided, if world leaders act together, and act soon.

Oxfam believes all nations have a part to play – including the poorest, where people may have to find new ways to farm and make a living.

And the richest – particularly the US and members of the EU –  should reduce greenhouse gas emissions – immediately. They should also help poor countries cope with the likely impact of global climate change.

There’s no time to lose.

And presumably, the kind of concerted action Oxfam is urging world leaders to adopt includes measures like the carbon credit scheme yielding such fat rewards for those caring, nurturing environmental types at businesses like New Forests Company.

Let’s just have a look at New Forests Company’s list of directors, shall we, so we can get to know these delightful people better:

Chairman is Robert Devereux, ex-business partner and brother-in-law of another leading environmental campaigner, Richard Branson.

Director Jonathan R Aisbitt is ex-Goldman Sachs.

Executive director and CEO Julian Ozanne is the ex-husband of the X-Files’s Gillian Anderson who starred in the infamous No Pressure video.

I’m sure that every one of these kind, caring people is properly appalled that Ugandan children are being burned alive in order to facilitate their company’s carbon credit trading operation.

Then again, this wouldn’t be the first time that Third World natives have become accidental casualties of the holy mission to save Mother Gaia, would it?

Related posts:

  1. Prince of Wales to give up his Aston Martin, two Jags, two Audis and Range Rover to save planet. Not.
  2. 10:10: who are YOU going to kill to help save the planet?
  3. ‘Killing parakeets is racist’ – and other green lunacies
  4. Australia’s green orchidectomy*

2 thoughts on “Killing Ugandans to save the planet”

  1. John Fourie says:20th October 2011 at 11:14 pmJust came to your website to say that you are the lowest form of life. Lying and over exaggerating without even understanding the basics. Dont read anything this man says people he only wants you to go to his website to get some click, he is what we call an internet troll and does not deserve a second of your time. Please die so that the world can be a better place.
  2. John Fourie says:20th October 2011 at 11:14 pmJust came to your website to say that you are the lowest form of life. Lying and over exaggerating without even understanding the basics. Dont read anything this man says people he only wants you to go to his website to get some click, he is what we call an internet troll and does not deserve a second of your time. Please die so that the world can be a better place.

Comments are closed.

The real reasons why one billion go hungry: wind farms, biofuels, sustainability… | James Delingpole

September 19, 2010

A great post from Roger Pielke Jr. (H/T Roddy Campbell)

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations has just released a preview of its flagship report The State of Food Insecurity in the World. And guess what?

The preview has some good news: the number of people worldwide in chronic food shortage dropped 10% over the past year to “only” 925 million.

So that’s over 90 million people in the world taken out of starvation in the space of a year. How did this miracle happen?

Here’s what the UN says:

The 2010 lower global hunger number resulted largely from renewed economic growth expected this year — particularly in developing countries — and the drop in food prices since mid-2008.

In other words the UN is – in this rare instance – admitting what some of us say all the time. That economic growth means fewer hungry people.

And why the big spike in hunger in 2009?

According to FAO last year (PDF), one primary reason was the cost of fuel:

Given the increased importance of biofuels and the new linkages between agricultural and energy markets, increased cereal yields, if achieved, may not necessarily continue to lead to lower cereal prices. Because the world energy market is so much larger than the world grain market, grain prices may be determined by oil prices in the energy market as opposed to being determined by grain supply.Thus, higher priced energy means more hungry people.

Yes, it really is that simple. But not so simple, unfortunately, that people like celebrity lion-impersonator Jeremy Irons can understand it. Up above, you’ll see a video he made for the UN’s www.1billionhungry.org campaign. A noble cause. Problem is, it’s being co-ordinated by the very organisation responsible for promulgating global poverty through its misguided climate policies.

Read up on the UN’s Agenda 21. Discover what “sustainability” – the invention of the UN-sponsored Brundtland commission – really means. The UN is ideologically committed to combatting economic growth, not stimulating it.

Related posts:

  1. ‘Wind farms cure cancer, save kittens, create world peace’ says new wind industry report
  2. Wind farms: even worse than we thought…
  3. Official: wind farms are totally useless
  4. I don’t need my ice cream to ‘educate’ me about the glories of gay marriage or wind farms