Climate Change

Loss and Damage: The Third Era of Climate Change?

Reason's science correspondent sends a second dispatch from the U.N. Climate Change Conference

|

WARSAW—The annual U.N. climate change meetings are always all about money. This year's 19th Conference of the Parties (COP-19) of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Warsaw is no exception. The latest ploy by poor countries to guilt money out of rich governments is to claim that it's far too late to mitigate or adapt to climate change, it's now time to pay for the effects of climate change.

"We have now entered the era of climate change induced loss and damage," declares "Tackling the Climate Reality," a new report issued by three aid groups at COP-19. According to the report, "The time when emissions reductions and adaptation could have avoided significant adverse impacts on developing countries and vulnerable populations has passed." In the past, cutting emissions and adapting infrastructure and social institutions might have been sufficient responses to man-made climate change, but no longer. "A new, dedicated international mechanism on loss and damage is therefore needed under the UNFCCC to assess and address the significant residual impacts of climate change on vulnerable countries," the report states. 

The devastation in the Philippines caused by Typhoon Haiyan has been repeatedly cited in the hallways and conference rooms of Warsaw's National Stadium as an example of the loss and damage generated by climate change. COP-19 opened last week with an impassioned speech by the Philippines' lead climate negotiator Naderev Yeb Sano citing Haiyan as "an extreme climate event" of the sort exacerbated by man-made global warming. "The climate crisis is madness," declared a tearful Sano. "We have to confront the issue of loss and damage. Loss and damage from climate change is a reality today across the world." Sano is now on a hunger strike until meaningful action is taken to address the global crisis at COP-19.

On Tuesday, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon told conference delegates, "Climate change threatens current and future generations—we need to look no further than last week's catastrophe in the Philippines." And at a press briefing by the Climate Action Network, Harjeet Singh, the International Coordinator for Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Adaptation for ActionAid, argued that a global-warming enhanced Haiyan had overwhelmed the Philippines usual ability to deal with typhoons. Haiyan proved that "loss and damage is in our faces now," declared Singh. 

(For an excellent analysis of Haiyan and the type of policy that would actually enable countries to cope more effectively with weather disasters, see my Reason Foundation colleague Julian Morris' article "The Terrible Toll of Typhoon Haiyan Doesn't Excuse Bad Policy.")

But is Haiyan's destruction the result of man-made global warming? Most likely not. The U.N.'s own Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2012 report on managing the risks of extreme events reported, "Low confidence in any observed long-term (40 years or more) increases in tropical cyclone activity," and noted that there is "low confidence in attribution of any detectable changes in tropical cyclone activity to anthropogenic influences." Additionally, the report stated that it is likely the global frequency of tropical cyclones will either decrease or remain essentially the same in response to global warming. The report also suggested that average wind speeds may increase later in this century, but not necessarily in all regions.

In September, the IPCC's "Fifth Assessment Report" dealing with scientific issues of climate change also reported there were no long-term trends in tropical cyclone activity and added, "Globally, there is low confidence in attribution of changes in tropical cyclone activity to human influence."

But, never mind the science, let's get to the bottom line: How much money do the poor countries want for climate change loss and damage and how do they want it dispensed? 

During the 2009 Climate Change Conference collapse in Copenhagen, the poor countries managed to extract a promise that rich countries would "mobilize" $100 billion in annual funding to finance climate change adaptation in poor countries by 2020. In the meantime, the rich countries agreed to supply about $30 billion in "fast start" financing between 2010 and 2012 to support developing countries' efforts. The rich countries claim that they have delivered the promised funds.

Now at the Warsaw meeting, delegates from the poor countries claim there has been "no clarity" from the rich countries on what's going to happen with climate change aid until they begin disbursing aid through the Green Climate Fund in 2020. Poor countries insist that, in the interim, the rich countries ramp up climate change financing for poor countries to $50 billion per year. "How can you expect developing countries to show ambition without support?," asked one African delegate. "Ambition" meaning that a country will agree to do something to counteract the effects of global warming. Translation: If rich countries pay for solar panels, we will agree to install them.

For comparison, official development assistance totaled $133 billion in 2011. Keep in mind that the $100 billion annually is for adaptation. Now that the world has supposedly entered "the era of climate change loss and damage," more compensation money is being demanded. And since loss and damage is "beyond adaptation," the  G-77 countries and China are pushing for the creation of a "new mechanism" that would be separately funded under the UNFCCC.

On Tuesday, the United Nations Environment Program issued a report, "Africa's Adaptation Gap," that calculated Africa's current climate change adaptation costs at $7 to $15 billion annually. If the mean global-temperature increase is less than 2 degrees centigrade above pre-industrial levels, those costs will rise to $35 billion per year in 2040 and up to $200 billion by 2070. However, if the world warms up by 4 degrees centigrade, annual African adaptation costs would be $350 billion per year by 2070. And those are just adaptation costs, not compensation for loss and damage.

Activists and delegates are blaming Australia, Canada, and Japan for blocking the proposal. At 4 a.m. on Wednesday morning, the delegates from the G-77 countries walked out of loss and damage negotiations. The proximate cause was refusal of the Australian delegation to approve a text to be forwarded for consideration of the environmental ministers at the meeting. Apparently, some of the G-77 negotiators were also highly offended by the fact that the Australian team was dressed in t-shirts and were "gorging on junk food." In any case, prospects are dim that a new, formal plan to compensate loss and damage will be adopted.

On Monday, U.S. climate negotiator Todd Stern suggested that the issue is best addressed under existing institutions that deal with adaptation. Tuesday, European Union climate change commissioner Connie Hedegaard said, "We want to find an intelligent way to address this issue, but we don't want to set up a big new institution." Finally, at a press conference on Tuesday, the executive secretary of the UNFCCC Christiana Figueres said, "We do not expect to reach a final resolution on the loss and damage mechanism here in Warsaw."

The environmental ministers arrived in Warsaw on Tuesday for the High Level Segment of the conference. There should be some interesting speechifying to report at least.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

75 responses to “Loss and Damage: The Third Era of Climate Change?

  1. Why are we in the UN?

    1. Well *somebody* has to pay these countries to shit all over us.

  2. The externality analysis seems so incomplete. Why do we only account for the negative externalities? Don’t positive externalities also lead to sub-optimal distributions and outcomes? If rich countries are supposed to pay poor countries because of climate change, shouldn’t it be the countries that are going to benefit from climate change that pay the most? Like Canada and Russia? Also, those poor countries should owe rich countries for all that exported technology they’ve benefited from.

    1. According to an expert I heard on NPR the other day their are pretty much no positive effects to be expected from climate change. Apparently we are actually turning the Earth into Mercury. Part of the planet will be a sweltering hellhole well the other half will be a frozen wasteland.

    2. Don’t be ridiculous. Everyone knows that technology only has downsides.

  3. So it’s a political shakedown for unearned loot. What a farce!

    1. The Earth’s ability to absorb CO2 could be considered to be a shared resource that the developed nations took more than their fair share of. Now the cost of global warming is being felt by developing nations as well as developed nations. On top of that some developed nations exploited developing nations’ resource through imperialism.

      Don’t developed nations owe something to the developing nations for past violations of their property rights? How does Libertarian principles apply to nations and shared resources?

      1. You’re good at this:
        “Now the cost of global warming is being felt by developing nations as well as developed nations.”
        Assertion absent evidence.
        It’s nice to hear how you ‘feel’ about things, but to be honest, I don’t give a hoot about your opinions.

        1. I was asking a question not putting forth a position. I don’t know enough about the situation. I don’t know enough about Libertarian principles. I like to think I am good at asking questions.

          “Assertion absent evidence”

          You use that phrase a lot and it appears to help you discredit other posters, but really doesn’t add to the conversation.

          “I don’t give a hoot about your opinions.”

          You’ve made that abundantly clear. You don’t have to say it any more. We will just assume it and concentrate on the topic at hand, okay?

          1. “You use that phrase a lot and it appears to help you discredit other posters, but really doesn’t add to the conversation.”

            OK, your claim is bullshit. Is that better?
            You made this assertion:
            “Now the cost of global warming is being felt by developing nations as well as developed nations.”
            You have no evidence for that claim.

      2. Re: ReasonableS,

        Now the cost of global warming is being felt by developing nations as well as developed nations

        Ok, and?

        On top of that some developed nations exploited developing nations’ resource[s] through imperialism.

        Again, and? Hong Kong has NO resources yet per capita income is one oif the highest in Asia. So is Singapore. The problem is not resources or historical grievances; it is a lack of economic freedom.

        Don’t developed nations owe something to the developing nations for past violations of their property rights?

        Nations don’t have property rights. Nations are not persons, they’re political constructs. Only individual humans possess things, not “nations.” If a person who owns a piece of land gives license to a foreign company to extract “resources” from it, that doesn’t mean the “nation” is having its “rights” violated.

        1. ” Hong Kong has NO resources ”

          You should take a trip to HK some day and get a look at this ‘resourceless’ enclave.

          The simple fact is HK has always had resourses. The most obvious is the fantastic natural harbour. Without the harbour, HK would never have been developed.

          Another resource is the people of HK. Many of them uprooted themselves from Shanghai and the mainland after the communist takeover and sought refuge and economic freedom in HK. They are capable and hard working people.

          I’m not sure I follow your argument about imperialism and exploitation. Are you saying that wealthy nations cannot exploit poorer ones because only individual people are capable of owning anything? That doesn’t seem to work in practice. Let’s say I’m a war lord in the Congo with a decent sized militia. I own a patch of land and give licence to a foreign concern. I force those who live on the land, squatters essentially, to leave. Surely I’m violating these neighbours, if not actually the ‘nation.’

          1. I really don’t have answers. I am just trying to understand all the sides. I come here for the Libertarian viewpoint.

            Perhaps…
            What if I offer the Kenyan government a huge sum of money to purchase land and water rights in the Turkana Region where a huge aquifer was discovered, but I require them to clear the land of the few nomads who occupy, but don’t have clear ownership of the land rather have communal ownership locally.

            I colluded with the Kenyan government and exploited the communal property rights of the locals who don’t have the resources to get to the water from what land I don’t control leaving me to reap all the benefits due to my greater initial resources and my collusion with the Kenyan government.

            Do Libertarian principles require me to renegotiate with the local people, pay for the water resources I unfairly gained and suffer a penalty for taking what wasn’t rightfully mine?

            If you can explain the principles I can try to apply them to the much more complicated scenario of global warming and developing nations.

            1. Yeah, we’ve heard that I’m just asking questions, just trying to understand routine before. And perhaps you are honestly trying to do this. Unfortunately, that well was poisoned long ago by others and you’ll understand our reluctance to engage you.

              1. I certainly do understand and if I don’t get more reasonable responses like yours I’ll probably leave at the end of the month. I prefer being ignored by those who don’t want to engage me rather than be subject to harassment.

                I can put up with having my motives and intelligence questioned if it is followed up by informative statements. Don’t tell me I am an idiot, show me how I am an idiot. If all you have time for is to tell me I am an idiot why not save even more time by ignoring me?

                So thanks for your respectful reply and don’t worry about engaging me.

              2. There’s no shame in admitting you don’t have the answers to his or any other questions.

                1. If that was addressed to me, my time is my own to spend as I like. I feel no obligation to answer every question posed here. And you are of course free to characterize my position as not having answers.

                  1. “And you are of course free to characterize my position as not having answers.”

                    If you have the answers, more power to you. I suspect most of the issues we hash out here don’t have any clear cut answers.

                    I find this forum pretty unsatisfactory in many ways. One problem is that many wish only to bluster and insult. Not a big problem as these people can be ignored or encouraged to participate more rationally. The biggest problem is with the site itself. Most conversations continue for a day, maybe two at the most, and then disappear into the archives, all but unreachable.

                    You know of any libertarian oriented sites that are more condusive to sustained debate and discussion?

            2. My take:
              Dealing directly with the government instead of the nomads is not libertarian.
              “clearing” the land of the nomads would require force which would violate the nonaggression principle.

              If you are paying for the water resources, they you have not unfairly gained them.

        2. Do Nations have the right to represent the property rights of its citizens in the Libertarian view? What about Iran? The Shah of Persia sold oil rights to D’Arcy for 20k pounds in 1908. Eventually after decades of renegotiation and a change to democracy, Iran nationalize their oil fields. This was countered by a British and United States government orchestrated coup that put the Shah of Iran in power and BP back in business.

          Was the land and oil rights the private property of the Shah of Persia and were they transferred according to Libertarian principles to D’Arcy and then later the British government who bought controlling shares of the company that ended up with the D’Arcy Concession?

          Doesn’t the murky nature of imperialism and corruption put negotiations on how to deal with the consequences of human caused global warming on a national level instead of a purely individual level? How did one person get the right to sell property or resources to another individual or group of individuals ie corporation?

          If we try to apply Libertarian principles to global warming talks how do we decide who owns what? Just start from the present and ignore past injustices?

          1. Just start from the present and ignore past injustices?

            Pretty much so. Because it’s injustices all the way back, really. Most of which are undocumented. You assume that the Lenape inhabitants of Manhattan Island who sold the place to the Dutch in 1626 had clear title. Perhaps they had “unjustly” invaded the place. And you’d never know because they were pre-literate people, but that doesn’t make the injustice any less.

            The only people with absolutely clear title to land are the first ones to have ever occupied that land (as in, first humans to set foot on it and claim it). And there is no fucking way you are ever going to determine who those people or their descendants and heirs are.

            So, yeah, you have to establish a starting point. And it will be arbitrary and unfair (to someone).

      3. “Don’t developed nations owe something to the developing nations for past violations of their property rights? How does Libertarian principles apply to nations and shared resources?”

        Good questions. I don’t think libertarian principles apply very well to a solution. Only individuals can own a resource such as the earth’s atmosphere’s ability to absorb CO2. Also, appeals to ‘fairness’ are bound to fall on deaf ears. Read the comments here. You won’t find a single one which recognizes or concedes to your fairness point.

        1. Good questions. I don’t think libertarian principles apply very well to a solution.

          Nope, a misapplication of the ideology doesn’t mean it doesn’t can’t solve the problem. Alternating current is a horrible base for transmitting information, doesn’t mean it isn’t capable of supporting an information infrastructure.

          There is a significant cost incurred with the conception and development of new ideas and fundamental research. Despite this fact, many libertarians believe the notion of IP to be intrinsically a government construct and anti-libertarian. That is to say if someone in Africa sees a solar panel and is able to deduce a means of creating solar energy using a similar device, they are largely free to do so provided they are capable of collecting the resources and providing the man power.

          Even this example is not the a purist libertarian ideal, but effectively shows that wealth transfer is easily and naturally achieved (despite possibly disincentivizing innovation).

          1. “but effectively shows that wealth transfer is easily and naturally achieved ”

            But it only shows half the story. The easy part. The difficulty you leave out is wealth transfer from Africa to the West – What the Africans gave the Americans in exchange for those solar panels. Charity has a place in a libertarian world, but it’s a place on the margins. It’s still primarily a place of business.

            1. Charity has a place in a libertarian world, but it’s a place on the margins. It’s still primarily a place of business.

              I thought you wanted fairness. Saying ‘fairness’ when you mean charity is pretty disingenuous.

              1. “Saying ‘fairness’ when you mean charity”

                When I mean charity? But it’s you who speak of charity, and say that it is the easy and natural solution. I’m much more skeptical about charity and feel that Africans should be able to solve their own problems without relying on foreigners or having their policies dictated to them by foreigners. Maybe some charity will be necessary after all, but I’d like to consider solutions that don’t rely on our charitable natures.

                Of course these climate problems are not African problems or Western problems but global problems. To solve them we’re going to have to put a lot of parochial concerns of nation states aside. A difficult proposition, but without doing so, I don’t see any solution in the offing. As far as fairness is concerned, it seems that the wealthier nations will bear a heavier, disproporationately large amount of the costs of a solution than poorer nations.

          2. That is helpful. Thank you. I will investigate Libertarian thought on IP.

      4. Your absurdity clearly indicates that the climate change cause has accumulated too many useful idiots.

        History can’t be fixed, not even with reparations. The funny part is, what you’re actually doing is perpetrating fraud in the name of some false sense of equality or justice rather than actually fixing history. Even if the all the king’s horsemen put him back together again, humpty dumpty still fell off the wall and broke. Get over it.

        That being said, you rather clearly indicate that imperialism (or the disparate application of communism) was the cause of the problem and wonder how imperialism will fix it? Might as well wonder how solar panels are going to put the oil from the Deepwater Horizon incident back under the Gulf.

        1. “History can’t be fixed”

          Maybe not, but we attempt to ‘fix history’ every day in our courts. Those who are victims of an injustice have long been awarded with cash settlements after a decision in the courts. Reparations are vital to its workings. Money is required of a wrong doer in lieu of an apology, for example. Does that money fix history? Not necessarily, but it’s hoped it helps the victims ‘Get over it.’ The closure of having one’s difficulties recognized in a formal public setting does seem to help and let people put these things behind them.

          1. Maybe not

            No, there’s no maybe about it. I know bleeding hearts like to practice revisionist history, but even rewriting the history books doesn’t change what actually happened.

            Reparations are vital to its workings.

            Completely untrue;

            The closure of having one’s difficulties recognized in a formal public setting does seem to help and let people put these things behind them.

            Closure and formal recognition aren’t in any way intrinsically reparations. The king’s horsemen loudly proclaiming humpty dumpty to have fallen off a wall doesn’t prevent him from falling nor put him back together. If reparations were vital to the workings of a/our justice system, victimless crimes and the laws around them would not exist.

            As you said, the only time reparations are just hope and the only time they are anything but hope when ‘fixing’ historical transgressions is when the transgressor is victimized to the satisfaction of the transgressed. In the end, what was, by some considerations, one winner and one loser has been converted into two victims.

            1. It’s not clear what you mean by revisionist history. History books have been written and rewritten. That’s the nature of any academic endeavour and history is no different. How do you presume to know ‘what really happened’ if you don’t avail yourself of what’s in the history books?

              “Completely untrue”

              You should study some cases that appear before the civil courts. Cash settlements are not at all uncommon.

              I think closure and formal, public recognition of past wrongs are part of a ‘reparations package.’ If it were only a matter of money changing hands, without, for example, a formal admission of guilt, the dynamics are not the same.

          2. Maybe not, but we attempt to ‘fix history’ every day in our courts.

            No. We don’t fix history (the past). We try to make actual living people whole under our system of laws.

            If you murder my grandfather and subsequently die before suffiecient evidence for prosecution is discovered the state doesn’t go after your descendants. Some things you just can’t fix. And that’s unfortunate, but that’s reality.

            1. “We try to make actual living people whole under our system of laws.”

              That’s the job of the courts, but society has other means at its disposal. Take the policies that favour the education or employment of blacks over whites. They are well established by now. Do they fix history? No, but they are implemented in large part to address past injustices. That’s reality too.

              1. Take the policies…

                Do they fix history?

                As you correctly observed, they don’t.

                [B]ut they are implemented in large part to address past injustices.

                And as you yourself admitted, they didn’t fix history. So the justification for those was demonstrably false. And the implementation demonstrably harmed people (both black and white) who were born long after slavery ended.

                So mandating unequal treatment to salve peoples’ guilt is A-OK? Got it.

                That’s reality too.

                Of course it is. Everyone here accepts that that most people have no compunctions whatsoever about making innocent people suffer to make themselves feel better about the past.

                1. “So mandating unequal treatment to salve peoples’ guilt is A-OK? Got it.”

                  Not saying it’s good or bad. That’s the solution that Americans have come up with over the past few decades. My personal feelings about it are irrelevant. If these things offend you, you are free to speak up about them and try to change them.

                  There’s a great quote from William Faulkner, never a favourite author of mine, but it’s worth repeating:

                  “The past is not dead. It’s not even past.”

                  Here’s one from Irish contemporary, James Joyce:

                  “History is a nightmare from which I’m trying to awaken.”

                  And of course, American quiz master Jimmy Gator:

                  “The book says, we might be through with the past, but it ain’t through with us.”

            2. What if I happen upon your grandfather after he dies and amend his will illegally so that I get his property instead of you? I then leave the property to my child. Can you get your property back from my child?

              1. Implicit in that is that you, the perpetrator, are dead. So, no.

                Plus, let’s say your child sold that property and spent the money on strippers. Would you expect the strippers to cough up that money? (Hint: no) Would you expect the purchasers of that property to just willingly give that up? And what if the property had been sold again and turned into condominiums. Would you expect the members of the condo association to make me whole?

      5. Don’t developed nations owe something to the developing nations for past violations of their property rights?

        Thanks to modern agriculture, heat-cycle engines, and medical science – among so many other things – there is at least twenty times as many people in the ‘developing’ world as there was a century ago. All thanks to the technology of developed nations and their political ambitions of yore distributing such throughout the world.

        We should send the developing world a bill for their newfound fecundity built on the backs of innovations and technology not theirs, but bequeathed free of charge. ‘They’ owe ‘us!’

        1. While that would be satisfying, that’s no more fair than expecting us to pay them because we’re successful and they aren’t.

  4. If only the Australians had thrown another shrimp on the barbie … all would have been well and good.

  5. …”Naderev Yeb Sano citing Haiyan as “an extreme climate event” of the sort exacerbated by man-made global warming.”…

    Now, THERE is “science”!
    See how the data was carefully collected to avoid any chance of bias? How it was interpreted by a disinterested third-party for the same reason?
    Who could argue with such robust research?

  6. But, never mind the science, let’s get to the bottom line: How much money do the poor countries want for climate change loss and damage and how do they want it dispensed?

    Let’s not forget that when talking about “countries,” people really mean money-hungry bureaucracies. Countries are not persons; they can’t have harbor grivances or have wants, or needs, because a country is only a political construct. The only beings that step on this good earth that can claim property are individual humans, not “countries.”

    1. Yes. It is very likely that a lot of this money the developing nations might get will end up being diverted into corrupt pockets.

      If we need to compensate individuals though how do we do that without involving the individuals governments especially when property is nationalize or owned communally?

      1. Well, you persist in thinking that “we” “need” to do something about this. You want to do something about this. Big difference. And nobody is stopping you. Have at it. Also, nobody is stopping a group of like-minded people from joining you. What we object to is being forced to pay for your guilt trip.

        There’s a charity that let’s you buy a goat (or pig or cow or whatever) and have that animal given to poor third-worlders. Direct relief. Go do that.

        And once you’ve done that, consider the economics of it. That goat has to come from somewhere (hint: not shipped from USA), so you’re basically enriching the local goat merchants and driving the prices of goats up. Because why would I sell a goat to a local for $5 when that big, rich first-world charity is going to pay me $7?

        1. The best thing we can do for third worlders is to give them a shining beacon of freedom and democracy to which to aspire. They ultimately have to decide that their corrupt despotic governments are doing them no good and fix that problem themselves.

  7. Loss and damage from climate change is a reality today across the world.” Sano is now on a hunger strike until meaningful action is taken to address the global crisis at COP-19.

    If he/she is really this dumb, then they are doing the rest of us a favor by stricking till they drop.

    Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Adaptation for ActionAid, argued that a global-warming enhanced Haiyan had overwhelmed the Philippines usual ability to deal with typhoons

    Yup Haiyan was a category 4 storm, those are a completely new thing that never previously happened before. Totally global warming climate change fraud.

    1. Storm 12 killed 8 people according to your link. Are you sure you got it right?

      1. Yes because I was making a point about storm strength, not property damage or fatalities. But since you apparently don’t have any critical thinking skills, The province where hurricane #12(the one I linked to) made landfall had a population density of 14p/km^2, whereas Leyte has a population density of 250p/km^2. Leyte is also a fucking island that is part of a group of islands, which if you weren’t so stupid you would realize makes it much more vulnerable to tropical storms. Their is also differences in wealth, governance, culture, and management, which all effect how damaging a natural disaster is just as much as its strength.

        1. So a storm, no matter how strong, will not cause casualties if it doesn’t hit populated areas. Not to belabour the point, but this seems obvious. What exactly are you trying to tell us about the fraud of global warming, and how does storm 12 fits in?

          1. mtrueman|11.21.13 @ 10:16AM|#
            “So a storm, no matter how strong, will not cause casualties if it doesn’t hit populated areas. Not to belabour the point, but this seems obvious”

            Not to belabor the point, but you’re too f’ing stupid to *get* the point.

  8. And pray tell, Ronald, what is not always about the money? Religion? Sports? LIBERTARIANISM? Ha!

    By the way, I find it interesting to note that you use the IPCC as the support reference to your point of view. Why? Because you always agree with all that they say? Or are you being selective?

    1. Since the IPCC issues reports that almost always are in favor of anthropogenic global warming or attributing extreme weather to it, it’s noteworthy that even THEY don’t claim the typhoon in the Philippines was linked with anthropogenic global warming.

    2. What source should he use? Ones that totally agree with him? Those would say that “extreme weather” clearly can’t be attributed to climate change. The IPCC says exactly the same thing. In other words, no matter the source, it’s an untenable claim. He chose IPCC to show that, even under the climate change camp’s own assumptions, that position is ludicrous.

      1. I was just curious if they are right about extreme weather, then maybe they also are right that climate change is getting worse, and that it is mainly attributable to man. Ronald seems to think they know what they are speaking about.
        By the way, its not ludicrous. There just is not enough history to make the claim, particularly in the Pacific. This is what the IPCC said:
        “Time series of cyclone indices such as power dissipation, an aggregate compound of tropical cyclone frequency, duration, and intensity that measures total wind energy by tropical cyclones, show upward trends in the North Atlantic and weaker upward trends in the western North Pacific since the late 1970s, but interpretation of longer-term trends is again constrained by data quality concerns.”

        1. “Time series of cyclone indices such as power dissipation, an aggregate compound of tropical cyclone frequency, duration, and intensity that measures total wind energy by tropical cyclones, show upward trends in the North Atlantic and weaker upward trends in the western North Pacific since the late 1970s”

          Which means nothing. You’re an idjit.

    3. And, by “all about the money”, he means pure and simple extortion. At least in sports, religion, or libertarianism, I can get some value for my money.

      1. And how do you figure extortion? You would need to have something to hold for ransom in order to extort anything. And what are these poor countries holding out as ransom?

        1. Not extortion, but a sympathy cons (as in confidence schemes). See, you rich countries caused this little kid to die but if you cough up the money we’ll shut up about that (for about five minutes).

          1. Yeah, because they know you always do all you can for the kids.

            1. Appeal to emotionalism. And a paraphrase of “for the children.” Begone, troll.

    4. Jackand Ace|11.20.13 @ 11:46AM|#
      “And pray tell, Ronald, what is not always about the money? Religion? Sports? LIBERTARIANISM? Ha!”

      The only parties claiming it *isn’t* about the money are the GW catastrophists. Did you know that and hope no one else would notice? Or are you that ignorant?

    5. Libertarianism is about being left alone.

      Come on, you know you want to mention ROADZ or SOMMELIERS!!1!

      1. “When they tell you its not about the money, its about the money.”
        -Bill Parcells

        Thanks for proving the coach right.

        1. Thanks for proving you’re an idjit.

  9. Hhhmmm, this sounds familiar–like slavery reparations? With that, we, who never held slaves and many of whose ancestors were suffering their own oppression in other countries, are told to pay reparations to those who never WERE slaves.

    So, assuming for the moment that the concept makes sense, who pays whom for what? When did global warming start? Which countries caused which part? Which countries “suffered” what damages? The Phillipines are to have had many typhoons of the same approximate size and impact of the recent one–going back centuries, while refusing to move away from the affected lowlands or institute building codes to improve survival. SO I’m not voting for reparations there.

    1. “With that, we, who never held slaves and many of whose ancestors were suffering their own oppression in other countries”

      I think this problem is a lot trickier than you make it out to be. Presumably your escaping ancestors chose to come to America because it was wealthy and free. A wealth built in large part on the backs of slaves. Freedom too. Would whites enjoy the same freedom if the founders had to take into account the large numbers of sub humans in their midst? I somehow doubt it.

      1. Would whites enjoy the same freedom if the founders had to take into account the large numbers of sub humans in their midst? I somehow doubt it.

        I very much hope that you meant to write that the founders considered blacks to be sub-human, as opposed to thinking that yourself.

  10. At drastic times such as these there’s only one thing to do. We need to form a study committee to write a report. I can see no other course of action.

  11. “Millions for defense, but not one penny for tribute.”

    Because that’s what this is, a shakedown. And once you start paying danegeld you never get rid of the dane.

  12. This is such a none story, Ronald, as you even indicate in your last paragraph where it was summarily dismissed by most at the conference. Instead, why not discuss a new report mentioned in the conference from Climate Action Tracker, that says even considering some improvement recently in the US and China, we now have higher projections of warming due to rollbacks of commitments from Australia and Japan.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/…..arget.html

    “Emissions pledges by all nations chart a path for the planet to warm by 3.7 degrees Celsius (6.7 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100, the Climate Action Tracker said today in a study released during United Nations climate talks in Warsaw.”

  13. Imagine if we could create through crowdsourcing a simple peer to peer network that could allow individual citizens to “compensate” other individual citizens for “climate damage.”

    Stipulate that all such transfers would be tax deductible for the giver and tax free for the receiver.

    Does anyone think the activists and governments would agree to such a hypothetical system?

    They would not, because they can’t wet their beaks in such a system.

    1. I would not agree to such a system because every dollar donated to “climate change victims” is a dollar that the rest of us would have to make up to pay for roads and defense.

      SLD that taxation is theft, but we’re not going to get rid of them anytime soon so the burden should be borne equitably.

  14. On the global warmerering front, did y’all know that Yers Truly is doing his/her VERY best, and serving as a “human carbon sink”? Whenever anyone brings free food to work, or there is a pot-luck of ANY sort, I make DARN sure to follow “fair is fair”? Half for me, half for everyone else! And so I have put MANY carbon atoms WAY into the deep freeze, OUT of them thar atmosphere, and stored into Mine Own Beloved Body, AKA, the Human Carbon Sink? I do it ALL fer U, and The Earth Goddess Gaia, and The Children! And, Yer Welcome!!!

  15. my buddy’s sister-in-law makes $89/hr on the laptop. She has been unemployed for seven months but last month her paycheck was $13360 just working on the laptop for a few hours. visit the website
    ===========================
    http://www.FB49.com
    ===========================
    Go to website and click Home tab for more details.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.