Maybe they can hire Kofi Annan's son to manage the distribution of the 200+ billion dollars.

I'm quite certain that the UN estimates are completely accurate and conservative, and that the money will be not be stolen by third world dictators, as in every other UN money distribution in history.

I can't imagine why the UN would possibly be pushing this quarter of a trillion dollar IPCC funding scam.... Just good science and concern for our well being - no doubt.

The world will be a garden of Eden if we just fork over the dough. Where can we sign up? At the Democratic Party headquarters?

Wow thats a lot of money to waste.
Think what that could do for real science or medical research.
This is precisely why GW as a reason for UN management is a bad idea.
This money would end up being stolen and never accomplishing anything but lining the pockets of corrupt officials.
Not to mention that it wouldn't really help anyway because man's role in GW (if it really exists) is not "Proven".
I'm a denier.
Just thinking that the UN could manage anything (it has a miserable track record) is the height of stupidity.

I think we will be seeing a lot more articles like this one now. As the AGW industry begins to see the end of their rain, they will begin scrambling to get their cut of the wealth scrapped from the Industrial world. This after-all was the real reason for the Kyoto protocol.
Let the feeding frenzy begin.

any of you AGW crowd salivating over todays headline of a $200 billion giveaway to the freeloaders in this world?...if this headline doesnt allow you to see what this ponzi scheme is all about, you too, must also live in Sherwood Forest?...have a nice, sunny warm, day!...its a good thing!!

Just curious, where exactly is this $200 billion suppose to come from?

Let me go out on a limb here and hazard a guess, US taxpayers?

Is that $210 billion per year? In today's dollars? No doubt it's a lowball figure. The true number is probably 5 or 10 times that. I'd like to know how this figure was arrived at - and no estimate of the wealth not created due to this misallocation of capital.

As I read the press release, this would only allegedly keep emissions levels in 2030 at today's levels - I thought this was already far too high?

Here's the kicker: '"The required shift in future investment and financial flows needs a combination of actions by the intergovernmental process under the UNFCCC and national governments," explained Mr. de Boer.'

i.e., put them in charge of everything. This is a massive transfer of wealth to poor countries and a massive surrender of liberty and sovereignty. No thanks.

$210 billion....that's still much less money than we've wasted on Operation Iraqi Failure.

CO2 levels are currently at 383ppm and rising. Prior to 1750, they were around 280ppm. However, even those levels are elevated compared to 5000 years ago.

It is a possible explanation for the MWP and LIA and was published in a peer reviewed journal.

The early anthropocene hypothesis is a theory proposed by William Ruddiman. The Anthropocene era, as some scientists call the most recent period in the Earth's history when the activities of the human race first began to have a significant global impact on the Earth's climate and ecosystems, did not begin in the eighteenth century with advent of coal-burning factories and power plants of the industrial era, as was commonly assumed, but dates back to 8000 years ago, triggered by intense farming activities of our early agrarian ancestors. It was at that time that atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations stopped following the periodic pattern of rises and falls that had accurately characterized their past long-term behavior, a pattern which is explained by natural variations in the earth's orbit known as Milankovitch cycles.

http://courses.eas.ualberta.ca/eas457/Ruddiman2003.pdf

Dr. Ruddiman may have some valid points. Of course human beings influence climate in many more ways than simply the amount of CO2 they emit in their activities. It has always been foolhardy to focus solely on CO2 emissions. I am glad this is being recognized, and forcings such as land-use are being investigated.

It just goes to show you, the science is not settled.

$210 billion....that's still much less money than we've wasted on Operation Iraqi Failure.

Operation Iraqi Failure? You Liberals really enjoy your slogans don't you :) We kill an average 1,500 hundred combatants in Iraq every month. They have had free elections and Saddam is dead. What would you have considered success, a bloodless coup with an Ice Cream party to follow?

In any event, so wasting 210 billion on a weak correlation of CO2 to GW is okay since you think 210+ billion has been wasted on bad WMD intelligence?

Andrew, did you read the entire piece you just posted? I will comment after you have replied yes.

Regards,

Steve

"What would you have considered success, a bloodless coup with an Ice Cream party to follow?"

I expected them to throw flowers at us on the streets. I mean, that's what you told us, right? I also expected to find WMD -- you know, that minor little detail that was the reason we went to war in the first place? Yeah, that thing.

By the way, what's a liberal, anyway? Considering that 80% of the country doesn't support this nonsense, wouldn't that make me a part of the common-sense majority?

I didn't make any claim about whether spending 210 billion is okay or not. I just think it's funny -- and ironic -- that the people up in arms asking about where this money will come from are the same people who have no problem spending money on their pet-project-turned-nightmare, Iraq.

Operation Iraqi Failure? You Liberals really enjoy your slogans don't you :) We kill an average 1,500 hundred combatants in Iraq every month. They have had free elections and Saddam is dead. What would you have considered success, a bloodless coup with an Ice Cream party to follow?

Going a bit far afield of climate change, aren't we?

I'm not sure how far down this rathole Brett or, for that matter, NGW Steve wants to go. The "freely elected" government we propped up in Hussein's place is now collapsing like the house of cards it is. We know that hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians have been killed since we destroyed their government, and millions displaced. We know we "detain", abuse, torture, and kill hundreds or thousands more as a matter of national policy.

NGWSteve seems to forget that all that happy-talk about flowers and parties was coming from Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Dubya -- the rest of the world, and quite specifically their own generals -- attempted to tell them that we needed at least twice as many troops as they had committed. They were rewarded by being fired, demoted, and ridiculed for their candor.

"NGW Steve" and others now apply this same failed and discredited slash-and-burn approach to climate science. It didn't work in Iraq and it won't work with climate change.

Mark - we were greeted as liberators. As for the WMD, I expect that will surface during construction of a new subdivision outside of Baghdad in about 20 years.

BTW - I thought the liberals told us there were no terrorists in Iraq?

"We know that hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians have been killed since we destroyed their government"

More liberal lies, based on, once again, flawed statistical studies. The folks at George Mason took care of this one too. They're pretty good about this.

The "happy-talk" about flowers and parties was the reality until the terrorist forces in Iraq (I thought they weren't supposed to be there?) launched their counter-attack, aided by the surrounding terrorist states. I didn't expect this to be easy, but we have suffered far fewer casualties than the liberals predicted, and the Iraqi people have embraced democracy.

Judging from the success of the surge, it appears McCain was correct and Rumsfeld wrong when McCain said more troops were needed to occupy Iraq. Rumsfeld's game plan for overthrowing Saddam was brilliant, but his plan for reconstruction was not. Tragic. Thankfully, we are on the right course now. I am reminded of other wars where it took some time for the right general to come to the fore.

If they want to waste all that money I'll take it all. Brett can have 1 billion, Patrick can have 1 billion, ill give 100 billion to education and homeless, and Ill take the rest and open up my own ski resort in Vermont. Ill call it Mt. Darren. I might also take a few billion and get a really nice house. Im thinking 8,000,000,000,000 square feet of living space? It would take a lot of energy to power that place, im not sure if Gore will like that very much?

Steve,

Yes. I have read the entire paper.

It is at odds with the IPCCs statements regarding expected due date of next ice age from orbital forcings.

Also, statements about bubonic plague influencing climate are obviously controversial.

Although it appears to be a well researched paper, I have not seen any comments on it. A detailed knowledge of human history for the last 10,000 years would be handy.

The life span of Kyoto is rapidly declining, good riddance!
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22323953-5013578,00.html

Going a bit far afield of climate change, aren't we?

And who could have guessed you would take it farther :) I don't care to go down this rathole, I was simply making a remark to Mark.

Yawn. Your opinion on this subject is well known from this blog alone, I thought I may quit responding to non-GW posts, but you seem to twist when someone disagrees with your OPINIONS on Iraq and it is entertaining :)

As for AGW, there is no room for OPINION.

When someone from your camp produces a well defined HYPOTHESIS, shows the METHODS clearly, and clearly presents your CONCLUSIONS then we can either put this to rest or make plans for real mitigation that does not simply punish Americans and Europeans while the Chinese, Russians, Indians, and more continue to pump out the alleged cause of the ONE degree increase that we have seen since the end of the last cooling period called the Little Ice Age.

Little more than wealth redistribution is gong to occur with the current plans.

The Iraq war has a great deal to do with illustrating the opposing actions of powerful groups that seek to solve global problems.

One point is that there were no AQ or terrorists in Iraq before the invasion and afterwards Osama and his mob have been busy assisting the emerging Iraqi freedom fighters against American attempts to secure oil.

Outside Iraq there have been few terrorist strikes this year, while no terrorist action has taken a life in western nations.
This is why we call the opposing forces i Iraq insurgents and not terrorists, because they are fighting in Iraq as fiercely patriotic Iraqis who have taken action in the region against western forces and the collaborators of the invading forces.

The Iraqi government is obviously a collaborator and therefore legitimately targeted by freedom fighters, just as the Free French targeted any who would not support attacks against the Nazis.

Therefore this current phase of the war on terror is caused by US action and will be won only when the US stop provoking weaker nations in its effort to secure oil.

Oil is a very large emitter of GHG and is also what holds up the Iraqi government debate as they are being encouraged by the US to privatise the industry.

Oil is something that might be superseded if the UN successfully encourages member states to find alternatives for it.

I�m surprised by the outrage that a transition away from fossil fuels will cost money. Surely sticking with traditional fuel is costing lives and exactly the same amount of money while further increasing the risks of global warming.

These subjects are therefore not unconnected, so they should be compared. $200 million would be and should be invested in sustainable energy. If we can just stop wasting it on War we might stand a chance in the future, but we cannot afford to do both.

Remember every dollar spent earned from current economic sources depends on a surplus of fossil fuel burnt. If we are to prosper as fossil fuel sources decline we must investigate all alternatives using the wealth that initially comes from fossil fuel. Throwing money at Iraq will not deliver alternate economic options for the future and will not protect us from climate change.

So far this year thousands have died from the effects of global warming while no one outside Iraq been hurt by terrorists.

What should we be scared of?

I see our angry friends on the left are still at it by not sticking to the topic of global warming, and are still bring up the war in Iraq (which we are NOT going to let them Vietnamize) and complain that they are in the minority on this blog. (Brett, again, I implore you to take heed of this, espcially in light of your "Time Out" request. This is a Global Warming blog, not the Daily Kos). Boy, the peace, love and harmony from these guys is just blinding, isn't it? I guess that's the way it is when you are outnumbered and no one buys into your pap any longer.

Love and Kisses

The JESTER!

P.S. Haven't been around for a while. Trying to limit my posts from the office, because, well, it's the office. Home today! Going out to enjoy some global warming, what little of it we had this summer! Remember? Summer? August 19th High Temp in PGH, 64F? I love lauging at these guys!

Oh, by the by, here's something that you will not see on the evening news:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/
08/29/less-half-published-scientists-endorse-global-warming-theory

Consensus??? Yeah Right!

Reply: I will be discussing that in a soon to be post. Brett.

DENY DENY DENY THE GLOBAL WARMING LIE!!!!!

"The Anthropocene era, as some scientists call the most recent period in the Earth's history when the activities of the human race first began to have a significant global impact on the Earth's climate and ecosystems, did not begin in the eighteenth century with advent of coal-burning factories and power plants of the industrial era, as was commonly assumed, but dates back to 8000 years ago, triggered by intense farming activities of our early agrarian ancestors."

The problem with that scenario is thar most of the natural growth forests of the world remained intact well into the 14th centuries. North America, Europe, Africa, South America, and Asia had very small, scattered population centers. The estimated population of Europe for instance in 1200 was less than 15 million people. North America was below 5 million. In East Africa and the Middle East, farming was completly determined by climatic conditions- advanced irrigation methods were not practiced in the Nile or Tigris vallies during the Middle Ages. Much of the world's population were nomadic herders and hunters, whose numbers never threatened the enviorment.

To say that the primitive, scattered, and small settlements of the world created enough CO2 to cause the MWP is ludicrous.