Home > AGW, Climate Change, Global Warming, Omniclimate, Policy > Thank You Mr De Boer For A Final Note Of Climate Realism

Thank You Mr De Boer For A Final Note Of Climate Realism

Like all good diplomats, Yvo de Boer has decided to leave the UNFCCC on a high note, and with some frank remarks finally providing a glimpse about where the world actually is, in terms of dealing with climate change. Here’s them very briefly:

“A good debate on rules and compliance can help bring us closer to an ambitious and credible regime”
In other words, there’s been too much emphasis on grandiose statements about legally-binding agreements, with no attention to the details of them.
“We are on a long journey to address climate change”
In other words, silly statements such as Prince Charles’ “99 months to prevent disaster” are just unjustified noise.
“Often the focus is on the interpretation of stated positions, rather than debate to understand the nature of underlying interests”
So once again, the point is that too many AGW activists  have agonized about people’s and politicians’ thoughts and beliefs rather than the practicalities of finding a workable solution.

“At home, we would never seek to reform agricultural policy without involving the Ministry of Agriculture. We would, however, give that Ministry clear terms of reference and ask it to report back to Cabinet.”

In other words, it’s not the right time for being all cuddly and asininely inclusive.

“Sarah Palin recently referred to the work of the IPCC as “snake oil science”. This remark was symptomatic of a growing distrust with regard to the science that underpins climate policy. This is not something we can afford. I am very happy that a review of the IPCC’s working methods is taking place. If we undertake a broad review of the Convention in 2015, we will need a strong, credible and robust Fifth Assessment Report on which to base that review.”

In other words, people fixated on blaming the “growing distrust” on evil Exxon-funded denialist machines, are talking rubbish. The IPCC is in need of getting its house in order before 5AR comes out.

“There are, I believe, huge opportunities to ask the private sector what policy design is needed to achieve the greatest possible green growth, while safeguarding economic growth and poverty eradication”

In other words, by focusing on climate and “green” alone, many have risked ruining economic growth and poverty eradication programmes.

“The national slogan of my country is: “unity in diversity”. I am confident that you can find that unity in diversity”

And that’s a message for all climate talebans to get lost. Because “diversity” is as important as “unity”, and the latter must be found in the former.

Advertisements
  1. 2010/06/10 at 14:58

    Wow! I am stunned by the artistic license you take in interpreting the statements of Mr. de Boer. Look here:

    He says: “We are on a long journey to address climate change”

    Which you translate to: “silly statements such as Prince Charles’ “99 months to prevent disaster” are just unjustified noise.”

    Huh? How in the world do you draw that conclusion? The original statement is clearly about the lengthy process of address climate change, not the pace of climate change itself.

    He says: “Often the focus is on the interpretation of stated positions, rather than debate to understand the nature of underlying interests”

    Which you transform to: “too many AGW activists have agonized about people’s and politicians’ thoughts and beliefs rather than the practicalities of finding a workable solution.”

    Do you really think that this diplomat was offering such a one-sided view of the politics of the situation? That wouldn’t be very diplomatic of him. I read the statement as a criticism of ALL sides in the dispute, not just the side you happen to disagree with.

    He says: “At home, we would never seek to reform agricultural policy without involving the Ministry of Agriculture. We would, however, give that Ministry clear terms of reference and ask it to report back to Cabinet.”

    Which you translate to: ” it’s not the right time for being all cuddly and asininely inclusive.”

    I can only drop my jaw in incredulity at the magnitude of the difference between your statement and his.

    He says: “Sarah Palin recently referred to the work of the IPCC as “snake oil science”. This remark was symptomatic of a growing distrust with regard to the science that underpins climate policy. This is not something we can afford. I am very happy that a review of the IPCC’s working methods is taking place. If we undertake a broad review of the Convention in 2015, we will need a strong, credible and robust Fifth Assessment Report on which to base that review.”

    You distort this to: “people fixated on blaming the “growing distrust” on evil Exxon-funded denialist machines, are talking rubbish. The IPCC is in need of getting its house in order before 5AR comes out.”

    He is most definitely NOT saying that criticisms of Exxon-funded denialist machines are rubbish! He doesn’t say or imply anything about such criticisms. He is noting that there’s skepticism among radicals like Sarah Palin — and the fact that he mentions her by name suggests to me that he’s ascribing such doubts to a class of people who are widely regarded as weak-minded.

    Moreover, he is NOT saying that the IPCC needs to get its house in order. He does not offer the slightest criticism of IPCC (remember, he’s a diplomat, not a blogger!) He says that he’s happy that there’s a review of IPCC methodology taking place. That review could well establish that IPCC methodology is already quite robust. When the flight attendants check that your seatbelt is fastened, you can’t take that as an admission that the plane is going to crash.

    And when he says that we need a strong, credible, and robust 5AR, that doesn’t mean that 4AR wasn’t strong, credible, and robust. Saying that the next generation of airplanes needs to be safe doesn’t mean that the current generation is unsafe.

    He says: “There are, I believe, huge opportunities to ask the private sector what policy design is needed to achieve the greatest possible green growth, while safeguarding economic growth and poverty eradication”

    Which you interpret to mean something completely different: “by focusing on climate and “green” alone, many have risked ruining economic growth and poverty eradication programmes.”

    All I can say here is, there is no connection whatsoever between your statement and his.

    He says, “The national slogan of my country is: “unity in diversity”. I am confident that you can find that unity in diversity”

    Which you translate to “And that’s a message for all climate talebans to get lost.”

    If I didn’t know your background, I’d think that you are referring to the denialists. After all, they’re much closer to the irrational, dogmatic ideologues of the Taliban than the scientists who comprise the IPCC and the National Academy of Scientists.

    “Because “diversity” is as important as “unity”, and the latter must be found in the former.”

    I can agree with that in principle, but remember, he’s talking about politics, not science. The efforts to do something about CO2 emissions have fallen far short of what is called for by the scientific results, and that’s because we have failed to address the political concerns. The only way you can achieve political unity is through proper consideration of the agendas of all the major participants.

    • 2010/06/10 at 23:25

      “The original statement is clearly about the lengthy process of address climate change, not the pace of climate change itself”

      If that were the case, one would have to admire the incredible coolness of Mr de Boer in the face of certain disaster…

      “I read the statement as a criticism of ALL sides in the dispute”

      No. Mr de Boer has spoken about a specific example: “the former German Environment Minister, Sigmar Gabriel, was heavily criticized when he said that the private sector would be the main source of international financial support. This was seen as passing off a public financial responsibility”. No prize to guess which “side” did the criticism.

      “I can only drop my jaw in incredulity at the magnitude of the difference”

      No, really, he is explicitly asking for policy details to be delegated, as it happens in every functioning Government, rather than having everybody debate everything all of the time. I fully agree with Mr de Boer’s suggestion.

      “He is most definitely NOT saying that criticisms of Exxon-funded denialist machines are rubbish! ”

      I haven’t said that either. I have said the “rubbish” is in the fixation on blaming the “growing distrust” on evil Exxon-funded denialist machines.

      “he’s ascribing such doubts to a class of people who are widely regarded as weak-minded”

      If I were Mr de Boer I’d seriously be considering your statement as libelous. There is nothing in Mr de Boer’s speech suggesting any judgement on Ms Palin or anybody else. Rather than engaging in performing pop-psychology on strangers, he focuses it all on making the two points that the “growing distrust…is not something we can afford” and “we will need a strong, credible and robust Fifth Assessment Report on which to base that review.”

      “He says that he’s happy that there’s a review of IPCC methodology taking place. That review could well establish that IPCC methodology is already quite robust”

      Oh please…not even Pachauri‘s mother would believe as much…

      “when he says that we need a strong, credible, and robust 5AR, that doesn’t mean that 4AR wasn’t strong, credible, and robust.”

      Please try to guess who wrote this text: “I have never place much confidence in WG2 because it is necessarily more speculative than WG1”. So much for “strong, credible and robust”…

      “there is no connection whatsoever between your statement and his”

      Mr de Boer is asking the conference delegates to open up to the private sector’s suggestions on how to grow green “while safeguarding economic growth and poverty eradication”. This means that those suggestions haven’t been considered so far, and that Mr de Boer considers them vital to achieve the three goals at the same time. This means that until now, “green growth” has risked to ruin (=the opposite of “safeguarding”) economic growth and poverty eradication. I do not think I can explain it more clearly than that.

      “The only way you can achieve political unity is through proper consideration of the agendas of all the major participants”

      Exactly! And that is impossible if activists scour the world (and the world wide web) trying to identify, reprimand, and silence whoever shows any sign of “diversity”. Just ask poor Herr Sigmar Gabriel…

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: