This (above) is how Myron Ebell opens his piece in Standpoint under the title
The United Nations' annual climate change conference held in Warsaw from November 11-23, was a sedate affair that attracted little public attention. It's been a hard four years for international climate negotiations since the debacle in Copenhagen in December 2009. At least 40,000 people from around the world flew into Copenhagen to encourage world leaders to save the planet from the carbon dioxide emissions produced by, among other things, aeroplanes.
It didn't work out that way.
We have reported Alan Caruba's report on Copenhagen in these pages:In the first place, the tens of thousands of NGO delegates from environmental groups were excluded when the 130 or so prime ministers and presidents arrived with their entourages because the convention centre could hold fewer than 20,000 people; and so the activists, who after all provide the political push behind the global warming agenda, had to be content with a massive protest rally in the streets (as snow fell gently on their stocking caps). Not even the magic provided by America's then new president, Barack Obama, could save the negotiations from imploding.(my bold)
The failure of recent COPs to come to any agreement is likely a good sign, suggesting that the climate change hoax is running out of steam, even among the nations that initially supported it.However Myron sees it in a different light:
....the fact is that the international global warming establishment is too powerful and the economic interests supporting it are too large to go away quietly. Thus the Warsaw conference, known officially as COP-19 (for the 19th Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change — or UNFCCC), made modest steps towards concluding a new agreement to limit global greenhouse gas emissions at COP-21 in Paris in December 2015.Where is BigOil supporting our side of the debate when we need them?
Although there is no evidence that man-made climate change is causing extreme weather events ( and in fact the IPCC's AR5 refutes it) Naderev Sano, head of the Philippines delegation affected by Typhoon Yolanda (or Haiyan), announced on the first day that he would not eat during the conference "until a meaningful outcome is in sight"
The head of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and many of the scientists who contributed to the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report, a draft of which was released in September, did nothing to contradict this obvious nonsenseMyron then goes on to talk of the "Green Climate Fund"
The fact that the cupboard is bare and likely to remain bare is now the chief concern of the poor countries. Many hours at the official sessions were devoted to speeches admonishing the US and the EU to commit to start contributing to the Green Climate Fund immediately and reach $70 billion by 2016. No agreement was reached in Warsaw on when, where, and how the money is going to be raised, so this will be a top agenda item when the 194 nations belonging to the UNFCCC gather late next year in Peru.This was the fund that Greg Combet was going to contribute to from the carbon tax magic pudding: (link)
Remember Mr Combet said all the tax raised would be used to compensate (or overcompensate) households. Remember Mr Combet promised the UN Green Climate fund almost $600 million from the tax raised.Instead of emissions of (vital-to-life) carbon dioxide (deceptively called carbon) being reduced, emissions are increasing:
Chinese emissions are now far above those of the US and the EU and are going to continue to rise rapidly as China builds scores of new coal-fired power plants. China's emissions have gone up so much that per capita they are now close to the EU's.The conclusion?
Christiana Figueres, the highly capable and extremely well-connected Costa Rican executive secretary of the UNFCCC, challenged conference participants to keep their feet on the ground but to raise their eyes to the stars. I have given her advice some thought in the weeks since returning from Warsaw to Washington, but she has not shaken the conclusion I reached when Kyoto was negotiated in 1997: in the unlikely event that global warming turns out to be a problem, a UN treaty cannot possibly be the way to solve it.