Bureaucrats Swindle Greens In Cancun
Published on: December 12, 2010
show comments
  • Angel Martin

    As a huge climate change skeptic, I welcome the result from Cancun.

    Love that video !

  • F.M. Hellsten

    AS a climate realist/climate sceptic I found much to commend in the column. But I would like to know what is the writer´s own view on global warming? I hope it is not the “green agenda” on climate change. And does he actually believe this kind of “science”?: “the earth will, according to the scientists involved in the process, warm by more than 4 degrees centigrade instead of the 2 degree target”.

    I support addressing real environmental problems and fighting real pollution – but the scientifically extremely weak case for AGW is not one of those problems.

  • Jon Jermey

    “the greens have run up against a force stronger than climate change, more insidious than the desertification of the Sahel, more inexorable than the rising of the seas..”

    Yes, but not “..the bureaucratic instinct for process..”

    What the greens ran up against was the failure of the planet to go on warming. If warming had been continuing now at the rate it was in the 90s, Copenhagen and Cancun would have been done deals. As it is, their apocalyptic cult is on the way out, as surely as cold winters are on the way in.

  • Peter

    The ture parasites are not those on wefare but bureaucrats like these clowns.

  • Lex

    People should read these books to cut thru the bs of our world.

  • Jack Bacchus

    One tiny problem chaps; the only link between carbon (which is the real problem or opportunity depending on which end of the public purse you’re seated) and climate change is a couple of dodgy (and quite incestuous) computer models with arbitrary time parameters, corrupt and corrupted data and self seeking promoters

    Maybe a return to the real world and a frank appreciation and admission that simple coincidence isn’t correlation for a start; and better still, an acknowledgement there are serious and poorly understood forces including the PDO, sunspots, the alignment of Jupiter and Saturn, the waxing and waning of the heliosphere, deep cosmic radiation, cloud formation and heaps more

    Better still, a rigorous application of known past data sets into the current models to see what gets generated versus the known

    I wish!

  • jonasm

    “If you think that climate change is a myth or a naturally occurring phenomenon, Cancun helped you out.”

    And also if you – like me – believe that man-made global warming is a rigorous scientific theory that for now (until disproved or replaced by a new theory) we should for the purpose of policy making assume to be true, *BUT* that Kyoto style approaches to the problem are stupid an ineffective, and we should rather invest that money into technology research (green energy etc.) and for *adapting* to global warming.

    I know the leftist eco-religious activists don’t care for such distinctions and put people like me in the “evil skeptics and deniers” category as well, but I still though I’d point it out… 😉

    [PS: I’m not a native speaker so sorry for any grammatical mistakes.]

  • It’s all a big distraction from today’s real problems. It’s much easier to pretend you’re averting the catastrophic problems of the 22nd century.

  • It’s long past time to dump the absurd pretext of the Kyoto Protocol: that the world can agree on and enforce emissions targets… Let the big, polluting nations lead by setting a gradually rising tax on CO2 pollution. WTO “harmonization” would soon push others to follow.

    More at http://www.carbontax.org.

  • I think this writer is not being realistic in his overall thesis. There is no way we would have seen solid legally binding targets for mitigation and adaptation in such a short conference, especially considering the state of negotiations at the start of the event. I think he knows that as he does not list that as one of the possible outcomes (preferring instead that the whole thing imploded even worse than Copenhagen so that they could start over and do things “better”).

    The best COP16 could do is get the process going again after the flop in COP15 and start to built the foundation to lead to getting legally binding targets later on. And that is what they accomplished.


    BTW, I do not accept the catastrophic AGW hypothesis either, preferring instead to see the money going to help vulnerable peoples adapt to inevitable climate change.

  • Steph

    I am just happy.
    Fed up with NGOs, ecofascists, bureaucrats, UN and global warming.
    We have enough REAL economical difficulties in Europe, to worry about non existent problems and greedy “developing” countries.
    They’d like to rip us off 100 billions?
    Who wouldn’t but they’ll just get a kick in the backside instead.

    Now if somebody found the way to definitely eliminate the UN and fire all the bureaucrats, my happiness wouldn’t know any bounds.
    I am sure that such politicians already exist and it’ll just need a bit of time to elect them in power.

  • Ben

    As a skeptic of climate change I disagree with you on some points (namely that a binding agreement would help the planet), but I agree that this psuedo-progress is worse than useless. Out of all possible scenarios, our politicians have chosen grandstanding, the only option with a 100% chance of negative results. No matter whether or not CO2 emissions are dangerous, we are wasting time and money shuffling cards around that could be better used making vaccines for children; helping food stability, fighting hunger, and reducing land use via spread of industrialized farming throughout the world; or any number of other ecological or humanitarian measures. Instead, we have paid a thousand men for a week’s vacation in paradise, and their only decision is grandstanding, ludicrous demands ($100 billion per year to developing countries just to fight climate change? That’s simply stupid), and a standoff where China defended the outright fraud of CO2 credits (unmeasurable reductions of CO2 from future emmmisions that never existed). This nonsense ceased being funny a long time ago.

  • andy

    very good article, someone is always getting swindled and you could argue the true greens are now been patronised and played like a fiddle, but I’m a climate realist, not a skeptic, and I want to see these charlatans get their do.. endless gabfests and hollow affirmations are way too good for these people. I’ve seen their venomous side and how they have bullied and ostracized good scientists, like tim ball for example, there needs to be culpability, I need to hear Al Gore admit he is a liar, and a hypocrite, that would be my best case scenario, you are way too good to these people

  • Beth Cooper

    Advise to UN bureaucrats: Open the double glazed doors and walk out on to the terrace, champagne cocktail in hand, and observe the great outdoors. No measured, catastrophic radiation feedback,the co2 ‘hotspot’)no increasinging temperatures for a decade and the seas just refuse to rise. (Services of King Canute not required.)

  • Mike

    Well, 2010 is now officially the warmest year on record, but what do a bunch of dopey scientists know about anything?

    And Tim Ball, the guy with a PhD in geography? Really?

  • Kennedy Smith

    Always be wary of anything labeled a “process”. They can’t be killed. Though, as a skeptic, I used to enjoy that feature, with public opinion the way it is now these people can’t do any damage, so bribing them seems an unnecessary expense.

  • phil g

    You lost me with the premise of your post which is that carbon is a problem that this boon dogal failed to address.

    Please point me to uncorrupted, definitive scientific evidence that carbon is significantly correlated to climate change.

    I’ll be waiting.

    Until then I’d love to see this empty grandstanding as an excuse to party like it’s 1999 on the tax payer dime. Businesses have been shamed for these types of activities on their dime, but I guess it is fine as long as someone else is paying the bills and it is for a ‘good cause’.

  • Brian H

    Maybe another few close-up whiffs of Global Cooling grapeshot will flip on the Ice Age panic, and coal-fueled power plants will be subsidized, maybe with free electricity for all max-CO2 customers?

    Oh, edit note: you missed a syllable: that should be “de-desertification of the Sahel”. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara_2.html

    BTW, the energy crisis is over, for all practical purposes for good:

  • Jeffrey Eric Grant

    I am a trained retired Engineer, with some long-term environmental activism. I am trained in the scientific method. I have been looking into the Global Warming theory intensively for three years and I have yet to find the ‘aha’ moment, when I finally ‘see’ the underlying evidence and understand the significance.

    I am ‘just’ an interested citizen; I have looked in a lot of places, with many more leads to follow. I have looked at the AGW side as well as the anti-AGW side. I have also tried to find an open source for the technical articles (to no avail – they all cost too much money). I am looking for the science that ‘proves’ the causal link that my use of fossil fuels is the most important reason for global warming.

    This is an area where there seems to be an extraordinary number of variables to understand before a higher level of certainty can be said to exist. To point out some of them (like the polar bear losing its habitat) is interesting, but not conclusive.

    Also, my belief is that the earth climate is a complex system which is ‘fixed’ and therefore can be understood with enough investigation and thought. It is important to continue the scientific focus until the system is more fully understood. The AGW predictions are far enough out that I will be dead before they can be tested.

    However, if we were to find a situation while only midway into the full investigation, which necessitates our stopping the work and addressing that situation, I think it would be prudent to do so.

    That is where we are at right now. Although we do not fully understand the system ( smaller scale phenomena, like atmospheric moisture needs to be investigated), we have found the ‘smoking gun’ that is causing the global warming — which is atmospheric CO2 which only comes from the burning of fossil fuels!

    Just how we blame global warming on that subset of CO2 is somewhat of a mystery. But, after weaving a story from evidence that the scientists keep hidden (just because they can), those scientists exclude other eminent scientists from seeing the evidence and say that their evidence ‘proves’ that they are right. Case closed. Let’s get on with the corrective action that is proscribed by those same scientists. Just trust them – they are right (and we don’t know one way or the other without seeing the evidence, or produce a like amount of scientific evidence by ourselves, without a benefactor).

    So, let’s say we agree to spend our money on the solution. This is very costly, but they say not doing this will eventually be even costlier in the long run. The net effect of spending all this money is: “if we are right, we can prevent the calamity foreseen”. To put it another way; if we fork over all that money ($Trillions) and it is spent, if we are lucky, we won’t see any change at all!

    That’s right……the increased temperatures we foresee in the future won’t materialize, we will have been saved! The trouble is: I DON’T BELIEVE THEM.

    There is no way to prove they are right, or wrong. And after we fork over all that money….there will be no great change from today.

    Do you get it? We’re being duped, and there is no way to say they are right, or wrong — either now or in the future.

    I say: keep spending the money for research. This time, let the data become available to anyone who wants it – scientist, engineer, ballerina, whoever. Put it on the internet without filters. Just don’t lose the data – then we’ll never understand it. Have debate after debate in the public domain on all of it (if this is truly THE most damaging thing on the planet, let’s get all of the ideas out onto the table). Set up a test – such as an ocean level rise of ‘x’ that has been agreed to that is the max save level above which we MUST take action; and when it rises to that level, we THEN TAKE ACTION! But, not before then.


    I think the average human should be well versed in this topic if democracy has a chance of offering any input into this discussion. From what I see, there is NO WAY that will happen within today’s political climate. Therefore, I pin my hopes on a small glimmer that the politicians will get it right and steer us to a proper and just outcome.

  • Less1leg

    If these UN supported Climate Scientists who defrauded the world public with faked reports, altered computer models, with held scientific peer reviews would have been treated the same, as those of investment bankers who defrauded their clients. I would hold reason to listen to climate change. But there was no action taken when so many supporters of Global Warming didn’t get taken to task internationally over their science. In fact more hidden agenda’s were perpetrated against the public record further damaging the science of climate change. Too much money and too many hidden deals in support of a world wide carbon trading scheme. It was too good a deal to not make behind closed doors for those who were in the position to prosper. Until such time as fraud is placed squarely on those of the UN who made Climate Change are tried, I have no faith in the UN or its offices.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.