By Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun

Professor Demetris Koutsoyiannis of the National Technical University of Athens is co-author of a study which demonstrates that the climate models which predict global warming cannot even hindcast to describe the climate we’ve been having.

He now responds to some of the more feral criticism from warmists on this blog:

“I wish to thank you for your posting about my colleagues and my paper (’A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data’ in this blog post.

Evidently, some people, including some of the readers and commentators of your blog, favour fanatic views over a dialogue between people having different opinions, which we practise in Hydrological Sciences Journal.”

See this post and comments here.

CFACT

Some people will sign anything that includes phrases like, “global effort,” “international community,” and “planetary.” Such was the case at COP 16, this year’s United Nations Conference on Climate Change in Cancun, Mexico.

This year, CFACT students created two mock-petitions to test U.N. Delegates. The first asked participants to help destabilize the United States economy, the second to ban water.

The first project, entitled “Petition to Set a Global Standard” sought to isolate and punish the United States of America for defying the international community, by refusing to bite, hook, line and sinker on the bait that is the Kyoto Protocol. The petition went so far as to encourage the United Nations to impose tariffs and trade restrictions on the U.S. in a scheme to destabilize the nation’s economy. Specifically, the scheme seeks to lower the U.S. GDP by 6% over a ten year period, unless the U.S. signs a U.N. treaty on global warming.

This would be an extremely radical move by the United Nations. Even so, radical left-wing environmentalists from around the world scrambled eagerly to sign.

The second project was as successful as the first. It was euphemistically entitled “Petition to Ban the Use of Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO)” (translation water). It was designed to show that if official U.N. delegates could be duped by college students into banning water, that they could essentially fall for anything, including pseudo-scientific studies which claim to show that global warming is man-caused.

Despite the apparently not-so-obvious reference to H2O, almost every delegate that collegian students approached signed their petition to ban that all too dangerous substance, which contributes to the greenhouse effect, is the major substance in acid rain, and is fatal if inhaled.

Perhaps together, the footage associated with these two projects will illustrate to mainstream America the radical lengths many current U.N. delegates are willing to go to carry out an agenda no more ethical, plausible or practical than the banning water. See CFACt post here.

Anthony Watts showed how Penn and Teller had has similar success with banning water here.

Oh dear, some of these folks aren’t the brightest CFL’s in the room.

Readers may remember this famous Penn and Teller video from 2006 where they get well meaning (but non thinking) people to sign up to ban “dihydrogen monoxide” (DHMO), which is an “evil” chemical found in our lakes, rivers, oceans, and even our food!

Yeah, they signed up to ban water. Now watch the video from the Cancun climate conference, you’d think some of these folks would have enough science background (from their work in complex climate issues) to realize what they are signing, but sadly, no.

Richard Black, BBC

Under the deal some countries will escape the extension of emission cuts under the Kyoto Protocol UN talks in Cancun have reached a deal to curb climate change, including a fund to help developing countries.

Nations endorsed compromise texts drawn up by the Mexican hosts, despite objections from Bolivia.

The draft documents say deeper cuts in carbon emissions are needed, but do not establish a mechanism for achieving the pledges countries have made. Some countries’ resistance to the Kyoto Protocol had been a stumbling block during the final week of negotiations.

However, diplomats were able to find a compromise.

Delegates cheered speeches from governments that had caused the most friction during negotiations - Japan, China, even the US - as one by one they endorsed the draft.

BBC environment correspondent Richard Black said the meeting did not achieve the comprehensive, all-encompassing deal that many activists and governments want. But he said it was being “touted as a platform on which that comprehensive agreement can be built”.

Mexico’s President Felipe Calderon said the summit had allowed leaders to “glimpse new horizons” where countries had the “shared task to keep the planet healthy and keep it safe from [humans]”.

The Green Climate Fund is intended to raise and disburse $100bn (64bn pounds) a year by 2020 to protect poor nations against climate impacts and assist them with low-carbon development.

A new Adaptation Committee will support countries as they establish climate protection plans.

And parameters for funding developing countries to reduce deforestation are outlined.

But the deal is a lot less than the comprehensive agreement that many countries wanted at last year’s Copenhagen summit and continue to seek. It leaves open the question of whether any of its measures, including emission cuts, will be legally binding.

“What we have now is a text that, while not perfect, is certainly a good basis for moving forward,” said chief US negotiator Todd Stern.

His Chinese counterpart, Xie Zhenhua, sounded a similar note and added: “The negotiations in the future will continue to be difficult.”

Bolivia found faults both with elements of the deal and with the way the texts were constructed through private conversations between small groups of countries.

Delegation chief Pablo Solon said that what concerned him most was that commitments would not be made under the Kyoto Protocol. “We’re talking about a [combined] reduction in emissions of 13-16%, and what this means is an increase of more than 4C,” he said. “Responsibly, we cannot go along with this - this would mean we went along with a situation that my president has termed ‘ecocide and genocide’,” Mr Solon said.

But Claire Parker, senior climate policy adviser for the global conservation group IUCN, said: “We have moved away from the post-Copenhagen paralysis.
“Developing countries can now see new money on the table which they can draw on to adapt to the impacts they’re already facing and reduce emissions.”

Tara Rao, senior policy adviser with environmental group WWF commented: “There’s enough in it that we can work towards next year’s meeting in South Africa to get a legally binding agreement there.”

The final day of the two-week summit had dawned with low expectations of a deal. But ministers conducted intensive behind-the-scenes diplomacy to formulate texts that all parties could live with.

Russia and Japan have secured wording that leaves them a possible route to escape extension of the Kyoto Protocol’s legally binding emission cuts, while strongly implying that the protocol has an effective future - a key demand of developing countries.

The Green Climate Fund will initially use the World Bank as a trustee - as the US, EU and Japan had demanded - while giving oversight to a new body balanced between developed and developing countries.

Developing countries will have their emission-curbing measures subjected to international verification only when they are funded by Western money - a formulation that seemed to satisfy both China, which had concerns on such verification procedures, and the US, which had demanded them.

See this sad tale of socialism and bad science run amuck here.