There was a post last week that addressed different views on climate change that attracted a lot of comments. Maybe that would be a better place to have this debate:

http://hot-topic.co.nz/some-fish-some-barrel/

While I agree that there are issues with the science, the international policy debate is quite separate and that is what this article addresses.

I can only assume that someone hacked the NWS site and that is the reason why it was pulled.

I suspect that there will be a follow up from NWS to this effect, but this will not be reported in the Examiner.

Just ignore the truth and it might disappear. That way you can hang on to the AGW comfort rug.

The negotiations are infinitely more complex than people probably understand. It is not as simple good guys vs bad guys, despite what Greenpeace NZ might want to have NZ portrayed as. For example, the coverage of last night’s meetings illustrated that NZ has significant weight and influence, irrespective of the target that politicians have decided on.
http://www.iisd.ca/vol12/enb12445e.html

Actually that’s another point; it dismays me to see people write about how they hope the NZ delegation gets blasted and pushed around for the NZ target. The commitment was a political call, not the personal view of any of the negotiating team. NZ sends incredibly skilled and committed people to those negotiations who work insanely hard. I feel nothing for someone like the Greenpeace NZ guy who makes superficial and negative comments while adding nothing to the actual outcome of the conference.

It only took two days for NOAA and the National Weather Service to pull a webpage on their site that questioned whether carbon dioxide truly was a contributor to climate change… Today the page has mysteriously vanished.

Surprise surprise!

For the full story, see here: http://tinyurl.com/yd3f758

And for the original story where the National Weather Service says, “No evidence CO2 is causing global warming”, see here:

http://tinyurl.com/yfcuges

LMAO!! Excellent!

A second possibility is the failure of the US Senate to sign the agreement leads to a ‘break away deal’ (US law requires a 2/3 majority). The US may pass climate legislation but not sign the LCA or KP2. Canada may pull out of KP1, and look at the US as a second option. This may lead Mexico to also sign up to a North American ETS.

This will leave Australia and New Zealand’s blooming Trans-Tasman ETS in an interesting position, align with KP2 or The NA-ETS? The world could be left with two competing emissions trading blocks.

China may also prefer the US scheme to the now Euro-centric KP. (but this is all speculation, feel free to post your own opinion, but don’t get angry at me!).

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was written in 1992. The Annex-1 list was formed at that time.

http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf

Of course at the time the world was different to now. These countries adopted commitments under the Kyoto Protocol.

Currently negotiations are occurring under 2 tracks. The Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP), and the Long Term Agreement (AWG-LCA).

The KP negotiations are where commitments are decided and the LCA negotiations is where finance, mitigation assistance, adaptations assistance, technology transfer etc is decided. Developing countries may be asked to take ‘Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Action’ (NAMA) under the LCA, but they will not face any commitment under the KP.

Of course there is the possibility to amend Annex-1 to include more countries, and no one is saying this defiantly wont happen.

The preferred approach by most western governments is now a ‘singe track approach’. This will bring commitments into the LCA, and tie financial obligations to action by all countries. This is a point of disagreement with the developing country groups (African Group, G77+China etc). During the recent Bangkok negotiations these differences came to a head.

Essentially developing countries want no part in binding commitments, while developed countries want finance tied to commitments (money for nothing and your chicks for free).