Is the Kyoto Protocol Dead?

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | NOVEMBER 6, 2012

Not likely. Even if the Doha Climate Summit fails to consolidate the validity of the accord signed by countries back in 1997, it is expected that climate alarmists keep the core of the plan with or without the Protocol itself.

The Kyoto Protocol is now in assisted living condition. It is set to expire this month, and with only two days to conclude in Doha climate summit, where the UN sponsored meeting intends to renew its precepts, the disagreements between the countries is making things more difficult than expected for those who promote the centralized regulation of living standards around the planet.

Before the conference ends on Friday, an agreement is needed if globalists behind the fake environmentalist movement want to extend this international convention and set new greenhouse gas reductions for 2017-2020. But the accord is threatened by the current disunity between the developed and developing world and even within the developed nations. Right now the only possible outcome is that in the Kyoto Protocol II there would be only a small group of countries (EU, Australia, Switzerland, Ukraine), but internal divisions in the EU  threaten to bear a not too valued fruit.

The Doha summit follows two negotiating tracks. First, about renewing the Kyoto Protocol, with new targets for greenhouse gas reduction pact for an extension until 2017-2020. The EU is its main supporter, while countries like Canada, Japan and Russia are completely disengaged from it. These and other developed nations such as the US have made it abundantly clear that Kyoto II would not will not have their support, because according to them, developing nations are not making equally significant commitments to cut their emissions. That is a smart choice especially because greenhouse gases are not the cause of global warming or climate change.

Parallel to the Kyoto II negotiations, there seems to be a global negotiation (agreed in Durban last year), aimed at a new global legal agreement or covenant to involve all nations in limiting emissions — U.S., China, but with different goals. The pact should be ready in 2015 and it is expected to be enforced by 2020.

Apparently, the first negotiation (the Kyoto II) was the easiest one, as the only effort to reduce greenhouse gases will be made by the EU. But new minor issues have become important, and there is a strong disagreement about them.

Countries from the former Eastern bloc — such as Poland — want to take advantage in their favor that they have fulfilled their objectives of leftover gas reduction by 2012, which according to experts happened due to the collapse of the global economy and not necessarily because the nations actively pursued such reduction. So, this nations now want their right to sell their emissions credit, which could help them get some cash effortlessly. In the negotiations, other EU countries are pursuing limits on the use of these rights and want to negotiate the cancellation of these rights once Kyoto II is over.

“Poland blocks the progress of the negotiations and wants to drag these rights to the new comprehensive global agreement, but what you have to do is cancel and set the clock to zero in 2013,” says Aida Vila, representative from Greenpeace.

The intention of the countries of the former Eastern bloc is to benefit from the sale of these rights — Spain recently bought 40 million euros in carbon credits from Poland. But if the EU accepts this situation, markets will be flooded with an oversupply of CO2 credits at low prices, which opens the door to buying other  countries’ credits so that some nations continue having a license to pollute. Those who benefit from the carbon credits Ponzi scheme must be loving it, but the pro deindustrialization folks are not too happy about it.

Meanwhile, developing nations and environmental groups continue to call for the EU to raise its gas reduction targets for 2020 (up to 30% less compared to 1990) to regain credibility as a fighter of climate change . “The EU should hold a cabinet meeting here in Doha, to agree to new emissions limit,” says Aida Vila.

The second major issue is conflicting financial assistance to countries most vulnerable to climate change. The UN climate fund created in Copenhagen failed to deliver the cash to its self-entitled members as it was promised. That is because the whole idea of having a centralized entity that dictates climate policy is not really meant to rescue nations may or may not become victims of our changing climate, but to finance the tyrannical operation of the globalist elite that seeks to gain greater control of resources and power.

As expected, developing countries are still wondering where is the money that rich countries announced they would receive in aid. They demand more assurance that aid will continue in the coming years, but their co-negotiators justify the delays with the economic crisis in the EU, U.S. absenteeism and reconstruction costs in Japan.

In Doha, much of the debate is centered on the repeated discussions of principled but differentiated responsibilities and attempt to continue establishing two blocks of countries, rich and poor, to the setting of differentiated commitments limiting greenhouse gases, with China and India in this second group, although this distinction seems increasingly outmoded.

New research presented at the meeting appears to show that even if rich countries cut their emissions to zero, which is near the goal set by the fake environmental movement and its corporate partners, that would not be enough to mitigate the warming, given the high growth rate of the gases in developing nations in the last two decades. Meanwhile, on main stream television, those in favor of taking the world back to the stone age are openly carrying the water for the corporate controllers with ever scarier doomsday stories that attempt to describe what will happen if nothing is done.

Arguments are now circulating that to avoid a temperature increase of two degrees (relative to pre-industrial era), and avoid a ‘climate catastrophe’, it is necessary that global annual emissions, which are estimated to be at 35,600 million tonnes of CO2, go down to less than 35,000 million by 2030. What this means is that the world’s progress will come to a halt and nations will need to go back to pre-industrial standards of living to stave off a catastrophe that is not only not coming, but that cannot be solved by killing the very same engine that can help humanity develop cleaner ways to develop.

As for the rules and regulations contained in the Kyoto Protocol, they will be approved either at the national level through executive decrees, or internationally adopted by technocrats who will then impose those rules and regulation on member nations. The idea to think globally and act locally has never been so useful for the globalists who seek to end one of the brightest eras in the history of humanity. They don’t need Kyoto II because they already have Agenda 21, which is the real blueprint for economic and social enslavement.

The Real Agenda encourages the sharing of its original content ONLY through the tools provided at the bottom of every article. Please DON’T copy articles from The Real Agenda and redistribute by email or post to the web.

Big Oil Companies Behind Global Warming Fraud

ACTIVIST POST | JULY 19, 2012

There was once a company named “Glori Oil” based in Houston, Texas, according to its website, it was:

A Delaware corporation founded in 2005 to commercialize technology developed by ‘The Energy and Resources Institute’ (known as TERI). […]

Our vision is to be the leader in bio-technology solutions to the global oil and gas industry and service provider of choice to both independent and major oil and gas producers. Our mission is delivering state of the art bio-technology solutions to improve and increase recovery from mature oil wells and to solve complex problems associated with the production of oil, gas and water.

It’s important to note that TERI, now unanimously known as ‘The Energy and Resources Institute’ was once actually named “Tata Energy and Resources Institute’, but I’ll get back to that later.

Glori Oil also later changed its name to Glori Energy, Inc. and recently appointed a certain Robert Button as President of Glori Holdings, a subsidiary of Glori Energy.

Here’s how they announced it in their March 2012 newsletter:

… Button will apply his extensive industry experience in support of Glori’ strategy to acquire end-of-life and abandoned oil fields for increased oil production.

Button is a senior Exploration and Production (E&P) business leader with 30 years of U.S. and international industry experience with Amoco and BP.

Button joins Glori from BP where he served in an executive role and was accountable for the Organization Capability of the E&P Segment Operations, Health-Safety-Environment, and Engineering disciplines. (Source)

Glori Energy’s slogan: “Tomorrows oil from yesterday’s wells.”

Many might think that such environmentally unfriendly “Big Oil” company must be lobbying and spreading lies in the anthropogenic global warming/climate change debate to protect its dirty business.

Well, yes that’s true, but here’s the fun part (you’re going to love this).

The Business Week link above lists a certain Dr. Rajendra Kumar Pachauri as founder of Glori Oil/Glori Energy, Inc., but for some reason, his name doesn’t appear on glorienergy.com (although it did appear on glorioil.com not just as founder but as head of the
company).

Well, Dr. Rajendra Kumar Pachauri is none other than the Nobel Peace Prize-winning chairperson of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that was established by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations’ Environment Programme since 2002.

This is the same IPCC that insists that fossil fuels and human CO2 emissions are driving the warming of global climate; that “the
science is settled”, that solar cycles have no or very little impact on our climate, that the earth and its inhabitants are doomed if we don’t tax and trade…I mean ‘curb’ our carbon emissions.

Thanks to archive.org (AKA the “Wayback Machine”) one can read his biography on the now disappeared Glory Oil website and find that, apart from being the Director-General of TERI (someone forgot to amend its name there, funnily enough, it’s the only place on the website where it’s still referred to as “Tata Energy Research Institute”).

Scientist: Blame Pre Industrialism for Climate Change

Editor’s Note: Where will they go next? Animal flatulence? Oh, no, wait! That has already been cited as a cause.

By STEPHANIE PAPPAS | LIVE SCIENCE | JULY 4, 2012

Humans started causing climate change long before the Industrial Revolution and the beginning of the fossil fuel era. A new study shows that the echoes of the earliest human-caused carbon emissions are still present in our atmosphere.

In fact, preindustrial carbon emissions, caused by deforestation as the world’s population grew, were responsible for 9 percent of the total warming the globe has seen to date, the researchers say.

“The earlier the emissions occur, the less the influence on today’s climate. But a part of the emissions stays in the atmosphere over a very long time scale of centuries to millennia,” study researcher Julia Pongratz of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Germany told LiveScience.

This rethinking about carbon emissions could alter the relative blame put on various nations by as much as 2 percent, the researchers said. The political ramifications are not yet clear, but most international negotiations on climate change have focused on a “Polluter pays” model in which the biggest emitters would take on the biggest role in mitigating global warming. Including developments as far back at the ninth century would place slightly more burden on China and South Asian nations, according to the researchers.

 Early emissions

Pongratz, who conducted the study with environmental scientist Ken Caldeira at the Carnegie Institution for Science in Stanford, Calif., noted that estimates of various nations’ contributions to the atmosphere’s carbon dioxide have all focused on emissions after 1840. [10 Climate Myths Busted]

But between A.D. 800 and about 1850, the world population quintupled to more than a billion. With that population boom came an increasing need for agriculture, and thus deforestation.

Trees are what scientists call carbon sinks. They store carbon dioxide and keep it out of the atmosphere. Once they’re cut down, not only do they stop taking in carbon dioxide during photosynthesis, they rot and release the stored greenhouse gas.

Using historical documentation, Pongratz and Caldeira created a virtual map of land use stretching back to 800. This reconstruction can be combined with climate computer models to determine just how much land-use changes influenced the climate.

Using these models, the researchers found that 5 percent of the total “extra” CO2 in the atmosphere — the emissions that wouldn’t be there if humans weren’t around to create them — date back to the preindustrial era before 1850. The percentage of preindustrial emissions for each region varies. For example, China and South Asia have only recently begun burning fossil fuels in earnest, Pongratz said, but historically these regions underwent massive amounts of deforestation. So those regions’ preindustrial emissions make up between 10 percent and 40 percent of their total carbon output.

Today, the researchers found, most deforestation-related carbon emissions are occurring in tropical regions of the world.

Assigning blame

Since the late 1800s, the globe has warmed by about 1.33 degrees Fahrenheit (0.74 degrees Celsius). About 9 percent of that warming is because of preindustrial emissions, Pongratz and Caldeira report Wednesday (July 4) in the journal Environmental Research Letters.

“This is a pure scientific study, and many things go into ‘Who is responsible for what’ that go outside the scope of science,” Pongratz said. “But when you attribute today’s climate change to regions of the world, then the picture indeed changes when you account for these preindustrialized regions.”

As Pongratz and her colleagues have previously reported, this historical look at carbon emissions reveals some of the major human events that shaped history. In particular, after the Mongols invaded Asia in 1200, the region’s carbon emissions dropped as forests were allowed to regrow in a time of war and population disruption. The Black Plague in Europe during the 1300s also appears to have created a carbon emissions blip, albeit a less dramatic one than the Mongol invasion.

“Independent of political implications for today, our study is quite interesting to look at how this attribution evolves over time,” Pongratz said.

Climate Coup: The Science

We checked the climate models against our best and latest data. They got all their major predictions wrong—air temperatures, oceans temperatures, atmospheric warming patterns, and outgoing radiation.

By DR. DAVID EVANS | SPPI | APRIL 23, 2012

Introduction

Our emissions of carbon dioxide cause some global warming, and it has indeed warmed over the last century. But this doesn’t prove that our emissions are the main cause of that warming—there might be other, larger, natural forces on the temperature. The key question is: how much warming do our emissions cause?

Climate scientists use their climate models to estimate how much. In this article we check their main predictions against our best and latest data, and find they got them all wrong: they exaggerated the warming of the air and oceans, they predicted a very different pattern of atmospheric warming, and they got the short-term relationship between outgoing radiation and surface warming backwards. The latter two items are especially pertinent, because they show that the crucial amplification due to the water feedbacks (mainly humidity and clouds), that is assumed by the models, does not exist in reality. This amplification causes two-thirds of the temperature rises predicted by the models, while carbon dioxide only directly causes one third. This explains why the models overestimate temperature rises.

We check the performance of the climate models against impeccably sourced, publicly available data from our best and latest instruments. See the end notes for how to download the data yourself.

Checking the Theory of Manmade Global Warming Against the Data

The theory of manmade global warming is that the world has been warming for the last few decades, that this is almost entirely due to our emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2)2, and that the warming by 2100 will be a dangerous 3–4°C.

The theory is embodied in the climate models, which are used to predict the future climate. We will now check their predictions against the best and latest global data, collected by our most sophisticated instruments. The climate models have been essentially the same for almost 30 years now, maintaining roughly the same sensitivity to extra CO2 even while they became more detailed as computer power increased. So it is fair to compare their predictions from over two decades ago with what subsequently happened.

Warning, forbidden data: The data in this article is impeccably sourced, from our best instruments, and is publicly available. Yet none of it has appeared in the mainstream media, ever, anywhere in the world. This observation leads into the political argument in Climate Coup—The Politics. As you look at the data, ask yourself whether it is relevant and whether the media should withhold it from us.

Air Temperatures

The best sources of air temperature data are the satellites. They circle the earth 24/7, measuring the air temperature above broad swathes of land and ocean, covering all of the globe except near the poles, and are unbiased. Satellite measurements started in 1979; early problems with calibration have long since been resolved to everyone’s satisfaction. The data presented here comes from NASA satellites and is managed at the University of Alabama Hunstville (UAH).6 This is an impeccable source of data, and you can easily download the data yourself. The data is currently collected from this satellite:

One of the earliest and most politically important predictions was presented to the US Congress in 1988 by Dr James Hansen, the “father of global warming”. Here are his three predicted scenarios, taken from his peer-reviewed paper in 198811 and re-graphed against what the NASA satellites subsequently measured (all starting from the same point in mid-1987):

Hansen’s climate model clearly exaggerated future temperature rises.

In particular, look at his scenario C, which is what his climate model predicted would happen if human CO2 emissions were cut back drastically starting in 1988, such that by year 2000 the CO2 level was no longer rising. In reality the temperature is below his scenario C prediction even though our CO2 emissions continued to increase—which suggests that the climate models greatly overestimate the warming effect of our CO2 emissions.

A more considered prediction by the climate models (and the earliest that cannot be wiggled out of) was made in 1990 in the IPCC’s First Assessment Report:

After 21 years, the real-world warming trend is below the lowest IPCC prediction.

Ocean Temperatures

The oceans hold the vast bulk of the heat in the climate system. We’ve only been measuring ocean temperature properly since mid-2003, when the Argo system became operational.

Ocean temperature measurements before Argo are nearly worthless. They were made with buckets, or with bathythermographs (XBTs)—expendable probes that fall through the water, transmitting data back along a pair of thin wires. Nearly all measurements were from ships along the main commercial shipping lanes, so geographical coverage of the world’s oceans was very poor—for example the huge southern oceans were barely monitored. XBT data is much less precise and much less accurate than Argo data—for one thing, they move too quickly through the water to come to thermal equilibrium with the water they are trying to measure.

Argo buoys duck dive down to 2,000 meters, measuring temperatures as they slowly ascend, then radio the results back to headquarters via satellite. Over 3,000 Argo buoys constantly patrol all the oceans of the world.

The ocean heat content down to 700m as measured by Argo is now publicly available, and you can easily download the data yourself. Ocean heat content is measured in units of 1022 Joules, which corresponds to a temperature change of about 0.01°C. The climate models project ocean heat content increasing at about 0.7 × 1022 Joules per year.

The average sea level rise since 2004 is about 0.33 mm per year, or about 3.3 cm (1.3 inches) per century, which confirms the Argo message that the oceans haven’t warmed recently. In contrast, the IPCC in 2007 predicted a sea level rise of 26 to 59 cm by the end of the century if our CO2 emissions continue unabated, and Al Gore suggested in his movie that we might see a rise of 20 feet and half of Florida underwater.

Read Full Article →

Canada out of Kyoto Protocol

The Canadian environment minister, Peter Kent, said Canada was invoking its legal right to withdraw. Kyoto did not represent the way forward for Canada or the world, he said.

UK Guardian
December 13, 2011

has pulled out of the Kyoto protocol on climate change,  one day after an update was agreed on, saying the accord won’t work.

The Canadian environment minister, Peter Kent, said Canada was invoking its legal right to withdraw. Kyoto did not represent the way forward for Canada or the world, he said.

Canada, Japan and Russia said last year they would not accept new Kyoto commitments, but Canada is the only country to repudiate it altogether.

The protocol, initially adopted in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997, is aimed at fighting global warming. Canada’s previous Liberal government signed the accord but did little to implement it and current prime minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative government never embraced it.

“The Kyoto protocol does not cover the world’s largest two emitters, the United States and China, and therefore cannot work,” Kent said. “It’s now clear that Kyoto is not the path forward to a global solution to climate change. If anything it’s an impediment.”

Kent’s announcement came a day after marathon climate talks wrapped up in the South African port city of Durban.

Negotiators from nearly 200 countries agreed on a deal that sets the world on a path to sign a new climate treaty by 2015 to replace the first Kyoto protocol, which expires at the end of next year.

Durban’s accord envisions a new treaty with binding targets for all countries to take effect in 2020.

“[Withdrawing] allows us to continue to create jobs and growth in Canada,” Kent said.

Canada had been expected to pull out and as a result faced international criticism at the Durban talks. Kent had said previously that signing Kyoto was one of the previous government’s biggest blunders.

Kent said it would save Canada $14bn in penalties for not achieving its Kyoto targets. “To meet the targets under Kyoto for 2012 would be the equivalent of either removing every car, truck, ATV, tractor, ambulance, police car and vehicle of every kind from Canadian roads or closing down the entire farming and agriculture sector and cutting heat to every home, office, hospital, factory and building in Canada,” Kent said.

Mike Hudema of Greenpeace Canada said in a statement it was a further signal that the Harper government is more concerned about protecting polluters than people.

Hannah McKinnon of Climate Action Network Canada said formally withdrawing was a slap in the face of the international community and “a total abdication of our responsibilities”.

An opposition New Democrat MP, Megan Leslie, disputed the figures involved and said there were no penalties under Kyoto. Pulling out saved the Conservatives having to report that Canada was falling short of its targets, she said.

“It’s like we’re the kid in school who knows they’re going to fail the class, so we have to drop it before that actually happens,” Leslie said.

Canada’s Conservative government is reluctant to hurt Canada’s booming oil sands sector, the country’s fastest growing source of greenhouse gases. Canada has the world’s third-largest oil reserves, more than 170bn barrels. Daily production of 1.5m barrels from the oil sands is expected to increase to 3.7mn in 2025. Only Saudi Arabia and Venezuela have more reserves. But the enormous amount of energy and water needed in the extraction process increases greenhouse gas emissions.

Kent said Canada produced “barely 2%” of global emissions. The previous Liberal government had signed on to Kyoto in 1997 without any intention of meeting its targets, he said. Kyoto originally covered countries generating less than 30% of global emissions and that had fallen to 13%. Canada wanted a fair agreement covering all nations.

Scientists say that if levels of greenhouse gases continue to rise, eventually the world’s climate will reach a tipping point, with irreversible melting of some ice sheets and sea levels rising by several metres.

Climate negotiations have been focused on preventing global temperatures rising more than 1.2C (2F) above current levels by the end of this century.